Module 2 – M2 Assignment 2 – Operating Globally

Need help with Home work below and using the attached articles :

Module 2 – M2 Assignment 2 –
Operating Globally

M2 Assignment 2: Operating Globally

Conduct research to identify a company that operates in two countries located in two different geographical regions. After evaluating the assigned readings and the research literature related to this module, explain adjustments that had to be made in the way the business operates in each country and how products and/or services are offered in one country versus the other.

Submit your findings in a 2–3-page paper. Make sure you write in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrate ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and display accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2 . For example, if your name is John Smith, your document will be named SmithJ_M2_A2 .

Grading Criteria

Grading Criteria

Proficient	Maximum Points
Explained adjustments that had to be made in the way the business operates in each country.	Accurately applied assigned readings and research literature in the explanation of adjustments made when operating in each country.
Explained how products and/or services are offered in one country versus the other.	Accurately applied assigned readings and research literature in the explanation and comparison of how products/ services are offered in one country versus the other.
Writing Standards
Write in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrate ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources (i.e. APA); and display accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.	Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources (i.e. APA); and displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Total:

Module 2 – M2 Assignment 2 – Operating Globally

M2 Assignment 2: Operating Globally

Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2 . For example, if your name is John Smith, your document will be named SmithJ_M2_A2 .

By Sunday, November 3, 2013, deliver your assignment to the M2: Assignment 2 Dropbox.

Grading Criteria

Proficient

Maximum Points

Explained adjustments that had to be made in the way the business operates in each country.

Accurately applied assigned readings and research literature in the explanation of adjustments made when operating in each country.

Explained how products and/or services are offered in one country versus the other.

Accurately applied assigned readings and research literature in the explanation and comparison of how products/ services are offered in one country versus the other.

Writing Standards

Write in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrate ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources (i.e. APA); and display accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources (i.e. APA); and displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Total:

Journal

of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI:

7/01

920

321552

Journal of Management

2009 35: 199 originally published online 16 July 2008

Niccolò Pisani

International Management Research:

Investigating its Recent Diffusion in

Top Management Journals

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/199.refs.html

What is This?

OnlineFirst Version of Record – Jul 16, 2008

>> Version of Record – Mar 26, 2009

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013

International Management Research:

Investigating Its Recent Diffusion in Top Management Journals†

Niccolò Pisani*

IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson, 21, Barcelona, Spain 08034

The globalization of business and the related increase in amount and relevance of international research suggest the need to map the international management field. Building on reviews by Werner (

2002

) and Werner and Brouthers (2002), this study provides a comprehensive picture of the field by examining the amount and type of international management research in 20 top management journals from 2002 to

2006

. An assessment of the pervasiveness of international management topics is also offered through a detailed analysis of international management publication patterns of 10 top management journals.

Keywords: international management review; top management journals; publication patterns

In today’s increasingly competitive global marketplace, international management (IM) research can be considered a relevant source of knowledge for understanding business phenomena. The globalization of business and the related increase in amount of published studies concerned with the international aspects of management suggest the need to map the IM field. As a result, in the last decade management journals have regularly published reviews of IM research. These studies have mainly focused on the delimitation of IM (Boddewyn, 1999; Martinez & Toyne, 2000), on where IM works get generally published (DuBois & Reeb, 2000;

I am grateful to the Center for Globalization and Strategy at IESE Business School for its support on this research project. I thank Africa Ariño, Miguel Ángel Canela, Matteo Prato, and Joan Enric Ricart for their helpful suggestions on previous versions. I also thank Manuel Becerra and three anonymous reviewers for thoughtful and detailed comments that improved the article. This article was accepted under the editorship of Russell Cropanzano.

*Corresponding author: Tel.: +34 93 253 4200; fax: +34 93 253 4343 E-mail address: npisani@iese.edu

Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, April 2009 199-218 DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321552 © 2009 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.199 Inkpen, 2001; Werner & Brouthers, 2002), on the methodologies used (Yang, Wang, & Su, 2006), and on the IM topics selected (Acedo & Casillas,

2005

; Inkpen & Beamish, 1994; Ricks, Toyne, & Martinez, 1990; Roth & Kostova,

2003

; Werner, 2002).

Although these published reviews have undeniably presented some interesting insights for the community of IM scholars, two major limitations characterize this body of research. First, most of these reviews failed to include a representative sample of management journals when searching for IM contributions (Inkpen, 2001). Most of the studies focused on a restricted number of journals, frequently limiting their search to journals exclusively covering international matters (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000). As a consequence, their biased results did not provide a real sense of the pervasiveness of IM contributions in the mainstream management area. The few studies that used a rather complete list of top management journals as a base for their IM reviews did not go further than computing the total number of articles for each journal scrutinized (Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002). Therefore, no published review has yet provided a thorough investigation of the real prevalence of IM studies in top management journals.

Yang et al., 2006) included articles published after 2000. However, in both cases the authors analyzed only IM works published in a restricted number of specialized international journals, hence limiting the generalizability of their conclusions. Therefore, scholars interested in becoming familiar with IM research, understanding its pervasiveness, and discovering the different journals’ publication patterns cannot rely on any of these works for updated information.

The purpose of this study is to tackle these two limitations, presenting an updated and comprehensive review of the IM field. I divide the study into two main parts. In the first, I offer an updated reassessment of IM research, examining the amount and type of IM research published in 20 top management journals from 2002 to 2006. The methodology used to select and categorize IM works is identical to the one used by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002) in their reviews of IM research for the 1976-1980 and 1996-2000 periods.

The use of the same method allows a comparison of the results of the three studies that gives an exhaustive overview of the evolution of IM research. In the second part, I address the lack of studies that deal with top management journals’ publication patterns in relation to the IM field. I select 10 top management journals and thoroughly analyze their publication patterns relative to IM articles for the 2002-2006 periods. I devote special attention to the initial selection of the journals (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005) because it has often represented a major weakness of previous IM reviews. Thus, this analysis contributes to the IM literature by uncovering the positioning of top management journals with respect to their exposure to IM research.

This article is accordingly structured. In the first section, I focus on the replication of the studies made by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002). I illustrate the main methodological issues, discussing the results and comparing them with the ones obtained in the other two studies. In the second section, I identify 10 top management journals and comprehensively analyze their publication patterns relative to IM research and its distinctive categories.

A discussion of the main contributions and limitations of the study concludes the article. 200 Journal of Management / April 2009

IM Research: An Updated

Review

2004

; Roth & Kostova, 2003). Second, they use a fairly complete list of top management journals as a basis of their review (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992; Judge, Cable, Colbert, & Rynes, 2007). Third, the replication allows me to compare the results of the three studies, providing a comprehensive perspective of the evolution of IM research. As I replicate previous works, I refer to them every time I use concepts and assumptions formulated

by the other two authors in the development of their research.

IM Research Boundaries

IM research can be divided into three categories: pure IM research, comparative management studies, and foreign domestic studies (Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002). First, pure IM research includes articles that look at the management of firms in a multinational context. It consists of studies that focus on the international aspects of management that do not apply to domestic enterprises (Ricks, 1991). Second, comparative management studies evaluate the management practices of different cultures (cross-cultural studies) and of different nations (cross-national studies) (Ricks, 1985; Ricks et al., 1990). Finally, foreign domestic studies look at management practices in a specific country outside the United States (Ricks, 1985).

For a matter of convenience in the further development of the article I skip the term pure every time I recall the pure IM research category and its related studies.

IM Research Categories

I used

categories to organize and group works pertaining to IM research (Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002). The list is quite comprehensive because it covers all the main aspects of the international aspects of management. Although it should not be considered a definitive classification of IM research, it can be regarded as a well-organized framework to classify articles in this field (Werner, 2002). The encompassing review offered by Werner (2002) for the 1996-2000 period using this categorization can be considered as proof of its usefulness.

Table 1

reports the categories and the main topics included (see Werner, 2002, for a more detailed description of the categories).

Pisani / International Management Research 201Top Management Journals

The selection of the journals used as sources of IM articles is a critical moment in the review process. The vast majority of reviews of IM research failed to include a representative sample of management journals in the search for IM contributions. For instance, many reviews only used journals with an IM emphasis, thus greatly reducing their articles’ impacts (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; Chan et al., 2006; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Yang et al., 2006). Although this limitation has already attracted the attention of other IM scholars (Inkpen, 2001), no published review has really tackled this issue.

Table 2

reports the entire list of 20 journals used in their study. It coincides with the full list obtained by Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992), with the only difference that it excludes the Harvard Business Review for its lack of focus on academic research. Although it is not recent, Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list of 21 top management journals remains one of the most comprehensive. Judge et al. (2007) used it as a basis for their recent 202 Journal of Management / April 2009

Table 1

Categories of International Management Research

Category Topics Included

1. Global business environment

Global economy, global markets, political and regulatory environments, and international risk

2. Internationalization

Description and measurement of internationalization, antecedents and consequences of internationalization

3. Entry mode decisions

Predictors of entry mode choices, predictors of international equity ownership levels, and consequences of entry mode decisions

4. International joint ventures

International joint venture partner selection, IJV partner relations, and consequences of IJV

5. Foreign direct investment

The timing of FDI, motivations of FDI, location of FDI, and firm and host country consequences of FDI

6. International exchange

International exchange, determinants of exporting, export intermediaries, and consequences of exporting

7. Transfer of knowledge

Antecedents of knowledge transfer, processes of knowledge transfer, and consequences of knowledge transfer

8. Strategic alliances and networks

Strategic alliance relationships, networks of strategic alliances, and

outcomes of strategic alliances

9. Multinational enterprises

Multinational enterprise strategies and policies, and models and

descriptives of the multinational enterprise

10. Subsidiary–headquarters relations Subsidiary role (including subsidiary strategies and typologies),

subsidiary control, and subsidiary performance

11. Subsidiary

and multinational Subsidiary HRM practices, subsidiary behaviors, multinational

team management negotiations, and multinational team management

12. Expatriate management

Expatriate human resource management, issues for expatriates,

and expatriate and repatriate reactions

Source: Werner (2002).

Note: IJV = international joint ventures; FDI = foreign direct investment; HRM = human resource management.

study on what causes a management article to be cited. Furthermore, Podsakoff et al. (2005)

recently corroborated in their work that the list includes most of the top influential management

journals of the last 2 decades. In the second part of the study, when selecting 10 top management

journals for a detailed analysis of their IM publication patterns, I further discuss this issue

and argue why the Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list, although still valid, needs to revised.

The Review Process

The 20 selected top management journals published a total of 4,900 articles (book

reviews and editorials were not included) between January 2002 and December 2006. To

reduce the number of articles to be reviewed in order to search for IM articles, as done by

Acedo and Casillas (2005), I performed a keyword search using the Institute for Scientific

Information’s (ISI) Web of Knowledge database. I identified the articles that referred to concepts

related to IM (international, multinational, global, foreign, etc.) in the title, in the

abstract, or in the keywords. The result gave a total of 596 articles, which I collected to create

a database. Then, after reading the abstracts of the studies, I categorized the 596 articles

by deciding whether they belonged to the IM field and, if they did, in which IM category

they best fit. I found that 336 articles belonged to IM research and thus I grouped them using

the 12 categories (the complete list of references sorted by the corresponding publishing

journal is available on request). The categorization process was not always straightforward,

Pisani / International Management Research 203

Table 2

Top 20 Management Journals

Academic Journals

Academy of Management

Journal

Academy of Management Review

Administrative Science Quarterly

Decision Sciences

Human Relations

Industrial & Labor Relations Review

Industrial Relations

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

Journal of Applied Psychology

Journal of International

Business

Studies

Journal of Management

Journal of Management Studies

Journal of Occupational Psychology

Journal of Organizational Behavior

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Management Science

Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes

Personnel Psychology

Psychological Bulletin

Strategic Management

Journal

Sources: Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992) and Werner (2002).

because some of the articles potentially fell into more than one category (Werner, 2002). To

categorize these dubious articles I read the entire study and made a judgment call. Although

the final categorization for such articles remains debatable, the fact that there were only 19

uncertain cases limited their influence on the results.

The methodology used for the review can be susceptible to a major criticism concerning

the subjectiveness of the analysis. Reviews have generally been carried out using either an

objective quantitative analysis based on bibliographic measurements or, as in this case, a

subjective qualitative analysis based on the researcher’s interpretation. Each approach has

advantages and disadvantages (Acedo & Casillas, 2005). The main limitation of qualitative

analysis deals with the potential individual bias of the reviewer that can influence the categorization

process. At the same time, the subjectiveness of the process can also be interpreted

as providing a superior level of thoroughness in the analysis of the individual articles

that cannot be guaranteed when bibliographic measurements are used as the bases of the

review. To limit the potential bias of a unique assessment of the studies, a second scholar

reviewed and categorized, using the same classification (Werner, 2002), a random sample of

54 articles out of the 336 identified as IM works. In 85.2% of the cases, her categorization

coincided with mine. Given the high level of consistency obtained, I deemed it safe to proceed

with my original categorization.

Results

Table 3

reports the number and respective percentage of the articles within each category

and compares them with the results obtained by Werner (2002) for 1996-2000.

204 Journal of Management / April 2009

Table 3

Number and Percentage of International Management Articles per Category

1996-2000 Review

2002-2006 Review (Werner, 2002)

Category No. % No. %

1. Global business environment 31 9.2 23 8.5

2. Internationalization 48 14.3 34 12.5

3. Entry mode decisions 20 6.0 33 12.2

4. International joint ventures 32 9.5 25 9.2

5. Foreign direct investment 35 10.4 37 13.7

6. International exchange 8 2.4 15 5.5

7. Transfer of knowledge 34 10.1 16 5.9

8. Strategic alliances and networks 17 5.1 18 6.6

9. Multinational enterprises 42 12.5 16 5.9

10. Subsidiary–headquarters relations 19 5.7 18 6.6

11. Subsidiary and multinational team management

33 9.8 20 7.4

12. Expatriate management 17 5.1 16 5.9

Total 336 100 271 100

Chi-square test of independence χ2(11) = 24.54*, p = .01

*p < .05

The chi-square test of independence (χ2 = 24.54, p = .01) showed that the distribution of

IM articles across categories significantly changed from one time period to the other.

Although for most of the categories the changes over time were minimal, for a few ones the

variation was important. Foreign direct investment and internationalization represent two of

the three leading categories for both periods. In contrast, multinational enterprises grew from

16 (5.9%) to 42 (12.5%) articles and knowledge transfer moved from 16 (5.9%) to 34

(10.1%). International exchange evolved in the opposite direction, from 15 (5.5%) articles to

8 (2.4%), and so did entry mode decisions, which moved from 33 (12.2%) to 20 (6.0%).

For a comparison that also includes the 1976-1980 period, I categorized data according

to the publishing journal. For each period, I also calculated the percentage of IM articles

published by every journal. This ratio provides a straightforward estimate of how focused on

IM matters a journal is and whether its IM exposure has increased or decreased over time.

Table 4

reports the results for each of the 20 journals and compares the results with the findings

obtained by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002).

Pisani / International Management Research 205

Table 4

Number and Percentage of International Management (IM) Articles per Journal

1996-2000 Review 1976-1980 Review

2002-2006 Review (Werner, 2002) (Werner & Brouthers, 2002)

Total Total IM Total Total IM Total Total IM

Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles

Academic Journals 2002-2006 2002-2006 % 1996-2000 1996-2000 % 1976-1980 1976-1980 %

Journal of International

Business Studies

207 147 71.0 199 128 64.3 124 55 a 44.4

Strategic Management Journal 343 57 16.6 337 53 15.7 24 3 12.5

Journal of Management Studies 321 37 11.5 192 19 9.9 107 6 5.6

Academy of Management Journal 296 23 7.8 291 24 8.2 289 3 1.0

Academy of Management Review 175 14 8.0 203 6 3.0 322 4 1.2

Management Science 617 11 1.8 629 6 1.0 717 3 0.4

Journal of Management 204 11 5.4 184 5 2.7 45 0 0.0

Human Relations 282 10 3.5 302 4 1.3 340 4 1.2

Journal of Applied Psychology 500 6 1.2 397 3 0.8 533 0 0.0

Journal of Organizational Behavior 253 4 1.6 270 5 1.9 21 0 0.0

Administrative Science Quarterly 87 3 3.4 129 2 1.6 161 1 0.6

Industrial & Labor Relations Review 153 3 2.0 163 6 3.7 181 1 0.6

Industrial Relations 154 3 1.9 145 2 1.4 200 0 0.0

Decision Sciences 128 2 1.6 199 5 2.5 293 0 0.0

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 145 2 1.4 158 1 0.6 167 0 0.0

Personnel Psychology 131 2 1.5 151 2 1.3 205 0 0.0

Journal of Vocational Behavior 287 1 0.3 244 0 0.0 322 0 0.0

Journal of Occupational Psychology 159 0 0.0 143 0 0.0 142 0 0.0

Organizational Behavior and 231 0 0.0 342 0 0.0 274 0 0.0

Human Decision Processes

Psychological Bulletin 227 0 0.0 206 0 0.0 459 0 0.0

Total 4900 336 6.9 4,884 271 5.5 4926 80 1.6

Chi-square test of independenceb χ2(14) = 31.58**, p = .005

a. Not reported by Werner and Brouthers (2002); obtained reviewing the 124 articles.

b. The chi-square test is restricted to the entries of the first eight journals listed in the table relative to the three periods.

**p < .01

206 Journal of Management / April 2009

A chi-square test of independence (χ2 = 31.58, p = .005) restricted to the eight journals

that published most of IM research in the 2002-2006 period (in Table 4 they correspond to

the first eight journals listed) confirmed that a significant change occurred over time. The

clearest changes occurred with respect to the end of the 1970s. Indeed, a chi-square test of

independence restricted to the entries of the eight journals relative to the two more recent

periods (χ2 = 9.27, p = .23) showed that no significant change took place in the last decade.

Figure 1

illustrates the main trends relative to the eight journals selected.

The three studies confirm the predominance of the Journal of International Business

Studies as the main publisher of IM research. The difference between the percentage of IM

publications in this journal and of all the others remained enormous over time. The Strategic

Management Journal and the Journal of Management Studies also maintained their position

in the rankings, being respectively the second and third most focused IM publishers.

Looking at the concentration of IM research, it is interesting to verify that these eight journals

maintained their role of top IM publishers from the late 1970s until 2006. The findings

show that these eight outlets published 97.5% of all IM research that appeared in the 20

IM Publications over Time

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Human Relations
Journal of Management
Management Science
Academy of Management
Review
Academy of Management
Journal
Journal of Management
Studies
Strategic Management
Journal
Journal of International
Business Studies

2002-2006 1996-2000 1976-1980

Figure 1

International Management Publications Over Time

selected top management journals from 1976 to 1980, 90.4% of all the IM research that

appeared from 1996 to 2000; and 92.3% of all the IM research from 2002 to 2006. Therefore,

the remaining 12 top management journals were responsible for about 10% of all IM publications

per period, thus maintaining a marginal role in the evolution of IM research.

Comparing the results between the two more recent periods shows that IM research

steadily increased its presence in the management area. The results show that whereas 5.5%

of all the articles published from 1996 to 2000 in the 20 journals were focused on IM matters

(Werner, 2002), this percentage increased to 6.9% for the 2002-2006 period. A chi-square

test of comparison of the two proportions (χ2 = 7.20, p = .01) confirmed that this increase

represents a significant step in the internationalization of the 20 journals selected. Looking

at the individual journals, we find that the Academy of Management Review substantially

augmented its exposure to IM research. In contrast, the Academy of Management Journal

even decreased its percentage of IM articles, being the only journal to reduce its relative coverage

of IM articles.

In sum, this updated review confirms the increasing IM presence in top management

journals. Although in the 1976-1980 period only 1.6% of the articles published in the 20

journals belonged to IM research, almost 7% of articles published in 2002-2006 could be

attributed to IM research. The distribution of IM research across categories and journals did

not dramatically change. There was a high concentration of IM articles in a few top management

journals, with the Journal of International Business Studies being the leading IM

publisher. Although the degree of concentration remains a relative concept, the fact that of

20 journals considered, the 4 most active IM publishers (i.e., the top 20%) were responsible

for about 80% of all IM publications in the sample makes it reasonable to delineate a high

concentration of IM articles in a few top management outlets. With respect to the topics

selected, there were significant variations in the relative weights of some of the categories in

2002-2006. Issues relative to the models of the multinational enterprise and to their ability

to transfer knowledge have recently been the object of an increasing number of studies.

Top Management Journals and Their IM Publication Patterns

The main goal of this section is to further our understanding of the pervasiveness of IM

research in top management journals, thus investigating their IM publication patterns. No published review of IM research has yet carefully examined this relevant topic. Although many

reviews have simply ignored the issue over the years (Chan et al., 2006; Martinez & Toyne,

2000; Ricks et al., 1990; Roth & Kostova, 2003), the ones that marginally addressed it either

failed to include a reasonable sample of top management journals as a base of their work or

did not provide a detailed analysis (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Inkpen &

Beamish, 1994; Lu, 2003; Morrison & Inkpen, 1991; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers,

2002). Most of the IM reviews restricted their attention to IM publications appearing in journals

exclusively focused on international matters. The most widely used IM journals

employed in such reviews were the Journal of International Business Studies, Management

International Review, International Business Review, and the Journal of World Business

(Acedo & Casillas, 2005; Chan et al., 2006; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Inkpen & Beamish,

1994). An examination of the 2006 ranking of top management journals based on their

Pisani / International Management Research 207 impact factor obtained from the ISI’s Web of Knowledge database showed that among these IM-focused journals, only the Journal of International Business Studies appeared in the list of the top 20. It is true that Management International Review is not yet tracked by ISI and International Business Review has only recently joined its rankings; however, it seems reasonable to assume that neither of them would likely be included in the list of the current 20 leading journals in the realm of management. Therefore, although the reviews exclusively covering such IM-focused journals certainly provided a thorough analysis of their IM publications (DuBois & Reeb, 2000), they failed to indicate the pervasiveness of IM research in the mainstream management area (Inkpen, 2001).

The only two reviews that used a fairly representative list of top management journals as

a base for their search of IM contributions are the ones of Werner (2002) and Werner and

Brouthers (2002), on which I based the updated review reported in the previous section. Yet,

because of two major limitations, these studies were unable to provide a thorough analysis

of top management journals’ IM publication patterns. First, the list of 20 top management

journals used (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992), although still valid, omits a few very influential

management outlets. Second, Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002) did not

specifically examine the IM publication patterns of the selected journals. These articles provide

nothing beyond what was reported in the previous section in terms of understanding

how top management journals position themselves with respect to IM research topics.

This section aims thus at addressing such limitations, providing the reader with a practical

map of top management journals’ IM publication patterns. The analysis is particularly

useful for IM scholars interested in determining whether particular journals favor specific

research categories within the IM field and, if they do, on which ones they focus. Building

on the results of the updated review of the previous section, this work aims at contributing

to the IM literature by investigating the positioning of leading management journals with

respect to their current exposure to IM research topics.

Top Management Journals

The selection of the journals on which to base the search for IM articles is a critical but

underestimated moment in the review process. As already discussed in the previous section,

Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002) employed one of the most commonly used

lists of top management journals (Judge et al., 2007; Van Fleet, McWilliams, & Siegel, 2000)

developed by Gomez-Mejia and Balkin in 1992. The recent work of Podsakoff et al. (2005),

who investigated the influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s, corroborates

the overall validity of this list. Of the 21 management journals identified by Gomez-Mejia

and Balkin (1992), 19 were among the list of 20 top journals ranked according to the average

citations per article published (Podsakoff et al., 2005). This measure, also called impact

factor, is frequently used as a proxy to determine the relative influence of journals in their

corresponding fields (DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Judge et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2005).

Therefore, should the Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list be revised? Although it is

still valid, a minor revision of the list would greatly improve its representativeness of top

management journals. Using ISI’s Web of Knowledge database, I obtained the 2006 ranking

208 Journal of Management / April 2009

of management journals based on their impact factor. When I compared the results obtained

by Podsakoff et al. (2005), the ranking provided by ISI Web of Knowledge, and Gomez-

Mejia and Balkin’s list, two major issues arose. First, the Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science should not be considered a top management journal, because it appears only in

Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s list. Second, Organization Science and Organization Studies

should be included in the list of 20 top management journals because they currently have 2

of the 20 highest impact factors in the management field.

Consequently, I selected the following 10 journals to perform a detailed analysis of their

IM publication patterns: Journal of International Business Studies, Strategic Management

Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of

Management Review, Management Science, Journal of Management, Human Relations,

Organization Science, and Organization Studies. The first eight journals belong to the original

list of Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992), and the results from the previous section confirmed

them to be the leading publishers of IM research. I added Organization Science and

Organization Studies to improve the comprehensiveness of the list.

Finally, for the first part of the analysis, I also included the Management International

Review, an IM-focused journal widely acknowledged as being the second most influential

outlet in the realm of IM after the Journal of International Business Studies (DuBois &

Reeb, 2000). Although this journal is not tracked by ISI, its inclusion here is very useful

because it offers a relevant reference point for interpreting the results corresponding to the

Journal of International Business Studies, which would otherwise be the only IM-focused

journal in the sample.

The Review Process

To search for and categorize IM articles, I used the same methodology used in the previous

section to update Werner’s (2002) review. In other words, I collected all the articles

(book reviews and editorials were not included) published in the selected journals from

January 2002 to December 2006. I performed the same keyword search to reduce the number

of potential IM articles to be reviewed and I grouped the articles using the same categorization.

For the eight journals included in Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list, I used the

results reported in the previous section. For the two newly included journals tracked by ISI,

Organization Science and Organization Studies, I proceeded to analyze the 86 articles identified

through the keyword search. Thirty-four articles belonged to IM research and were

thus grouped using the 12 categories. In three cases I read the entire studies before deciding

on their categorization because they potentially fell into more than one category. With

respect to the Management International Review, I analyzed the 183 articles published in

2002-2006 and categorized the 139 articles that belonged to IM research.

Results

The main results of the categorization process relative to the three additional journals considered

are the following. Management International Review published a total of 183 articles

Pisani / International Management Research 209

in 2002-2006, of which 139 (76%) belonged to IM research. In the same period,

Organization Science published 228 articles with 20 (8.8%) belonging to IM research,

whereas Organization Studies published 297 articles with 14 (4.7%) being IM studies. These

initial findings immediately confirm the relevance of including Organization Science and

Organization Studies in the sample of top management journals. With their respective 20 and

14 IM articles, they were among the leading publishers of IM research in 2002-2006. In

addition, for the 2002-2006 period these two outlets together published more IM articles (34)

than the 12 top management journals included in the original list of Gomez-Mejia and Balkin

(1992) and excluded for the analysis in this section (26). This result corroborates, on one

side, the high degree of concentration of IM articles in few top management journals and, on

the other, the soundness of the sample of journals selected.

In relation to the results corresponding to the Management International Review and their

comparison with the results obtained for the Journal of International Business Studies, the

fact that both of them published more than 70% of their articles on IM matters confirms their

clear focus on the investigation of international dimensions of management.

Using the 310 IM articles corresponding to the eight journals already considered in the

previous section and the 173 IM articles obtained from the examination of the three additional

outlets included, I investigated the type of IM research that each journal tended to publish

more often. In other words, I examined how many IM articles belonging to a specific

category were published by each journal.

Table 5

reports the number and respective percentage

of IM articles in each of these journals by categories for 2002-2006.

An interesting finding is that the two IM-focused journals showed a very homogeneous distribution of IM articles across categories with only a few marked differences. Both outlets published practically the same number of IM research articles in 8 of the 12 categories. However, the Journal of International Business Studies concentrated much more on the entry mode decision and the foreign direct investment, whereas the Management International Review focused more on the transfer of knowledge and the multinational enterprises categories.

International Review, the Strategic Management Journal, and the Journal of Management

Studies, none of the categories weighted more than 20%. Nonetheless, as already discussed

for the two IM-focused outlets, these journals differed in their publishing patterns regarding the content of IM research. For instance, both the Journal of International Business Studies and the Strategic Management Journal devoted most of their attention to internationalization (respectively, 14.3% and 19.3%), foreign direct investment (13.6% and 15.8%), and multinational enterprises (15.0% and 15.8%). However, only the Strategic Management Journal also focused on strategic alliances and networks (2.7% and 8.8%) and subsidiary–headquarters relations (5.4% and 10.5%). Beyond internationalization (18.9%) and multinational enterprises (13.5%), the Journal of Management Studies also devoted major attention to entry mode decisions (13.5%) and subsidiary and multinational team management (13.5%).

The other seven journals specialize in a limited number of categories within IM and thus tend to become a reference point for a few specific IM research substreams. For instance, roughly half of the IM articles published in the Academy of Management Journal belonged 210 Journal of Management / April 2009

211

Table 5

Number (%) of International Management Articles per Category and per Journal

11. Subsidiary

1. Global 2. Inter 3. Entry 4. International 5. Foreign 6. Inter- 7. Transfer 8. Strategic 9. Multi- 10. Subsidiary– and multinational business nationali- mode joint direct national of alliances and national headquarters team 12. Expatriate Journals environment zation decision ventures investment exchange knowledge networks enterprises relations management

management Total

Journal of International 15 (10.2) 21 (14.3) 10 (6.8) 18 (12.2) 20 (13.6) 5 (3.4) 12 (8.2) 4 (2.7) 22 (15.0) 8 (5.4) 9 (6.1) 3 (2.0) 147 (100)

Business Studies

Management International 13 (9.4) 19 (13.7) 3 (2.2) 14 (10.1) 8 (5.8) 4 (2.9) 26 (18.7) 4 (2.9) 29 (20.9) 7 (5.0) 9 (6.5) 3 (2.2) 139 (100)

Review

Strategic Management Journal 1 (1.8) 11 (19.3) 3 (5.3) 5 (8.8) 9 (15.8) 1 (1.8) 7 (12.3) 5 (8.8) 9 (15.8) 6 (10.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 57 (100)

Journal of Management Studies 2 (5.4) 7 (18.9) 5 (13.5) 4 (10.8) 2 (5.4) 1 (2.7) 4 (10.8) 1 (2.7) 5 (13.5) 1 (2.7) 5 (13.5) 0 (0.0) 37 (100)

Academy of Management Journal 1 (4.3) 6 (26.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (8.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.3) 1 (4.3) 1 (4.3) 2 (8.7) 4 (17.4) 5 (21.7) 23 (100)

Organization Science 1 (5.0) 2 (10.0) 3 (15.0) 1 (5.0) 2 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (30.0) 2 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (15.0) 0 (0.0) 20 (100)

Organization Studies 3 (21.4) 1 (7.1) 2 (14.3) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (28.6) 2 (14.3) 14 (100)

Academy of Management Review 4 (28.6) 1 (7.1) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 3 (21.4) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (14.3) 14 (100)

Management Science 2 (18.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (18.2) 0 (0.0) 7 (63.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 11 (100)

Journal of Management 0 (0.0) 2 (18.2) 1 (9.1) 2 (18.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (18.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (27.3) 1 (9.1) 11 (100)

Human Relations 1 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (10.0) 2 (20.0) 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0) 3 (30.0) 0 (0.0) 10 (100)

212 Journal of Management / April 2009

to either the internationalization or the expatriate management categories. In the Academy of

Management Review, half of the IM articles published dealt with either the global business

environment or the multinational enterprises. Management Science manifestly focused on

knowledge transfer, publishing more than 60% of its IM articles only on this topic.

Organization Science also had a clear focus on knowledge issues, publishing roughly one

third of its IM articles on this subject. Organization Studies published half of its IM articles

on the global business environments and the subsidiary and multinational team management.

Finally, the Journal of Management and Human Relations also concentrated mainly on two

categories, publishing about 50% of their IM articles on the subsidiary and multinational

team management and on the strategic alliances and networks. It is also worth of note that

the Journal of Management was the only journal that published roughly 20% of its IM articles

on international joint ventures.

To further our understanding on the different IM publication patterns of top management

journals, I considered the 10 top journals tracked by ISI, thus excluding from the previous

list the Management International Review, and classified each of their IM articles per journal,

category, and year of publication. Therefore, I created a variable Xcjt, which corresponds

to the number of IM articles belonging to category c, published by journal j at time t; c

ranges from 1 to 12 and corresponds to the categorization used until now; j ranges from 1 to

10 and corresponds to the list of 10 journals selected; and t ranges from 2002 to 2006. Using

this variable I investigated how journals modify their relative IM exposure over time and

their role in the evolution of the relative weights of the 12 categories. By tracking yearly variations

in the publication rates of journals, this analysis is particularly sensitive to the presence

of IM-oriented special issues in a given year. Although it is true that the publication of

a special issue can possibly skew the results for the corresponding year, the decision of a

journal to devote more attention to a particular IM topic remains worthy of note because it

represents an important element of its IM publication pattern. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the

main trends characterizing IM publications in 2002-2006.

The Journal of International Business Studies regularly published slightly more than 40%

of all the IM articles published yearly. Although its weight was fairly constant over the years

studied, the weights of the other two main IM publishers underwent more variation. The

Strategic Management Journal moved from publishing almost 30% of all IM articles in 2002

to publishing only about 10% of IM research in 2006. Similarly, the Journal of Management

Studies moved from 3% in 2002 and 2004 to 19% in 2005.

In contrast, the six journals that published less IM research saw their accumulated weights

steadily increase over the years studied, with the only exception of 2005. In particular, the

relative IM exposure of the Academy of Management Review and Management Science experienced

the most stable growth during the time period studied. In sum, although more than

65% of the IM articles regularly appeared in only three journals,

Figure 2

illustrates a pattern

in which journals that were characterized by a restricted and more specific IM exposure

steadily increased their relative weights in the publication of IM articles. Although 5 years

are not enough to make stronger judgments, the increasing yearly attention to IM matters

demonstrated by these journals could be interpreted as a sign of their greater awareness of

the importance of IM research.

Pisani / International Management Research 213

Figure 2

Relative Weights of Journals in 2002-2006

Journals’ Relative Weights in the Past Five Years

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

1. Journal of International Business Studies

3. Journal of Management Studies

5. Organization Science

7. Academy of Management Review

9. Journal of Management

2. Strategic Management Journal

4. Academy of Management Journal

6. Organization Studies

8. Management Science

10. Human Relations

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
8

Figure 3

Relative Weights of International Management Categories in 2002-2006

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1. Global business environment
3. Entry mode decisions
5. Foreign direct investment
7. Transfer of knowledge
9. Multinational enterprises
11. Subsidiary and multinational team management
2. Internationalization
4. International joint ventures
6. International exchange
8. Strategic alliances and networks

10. Subsidiary – HQ relations

12. Expatriate management
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6

6 7

7
7
7
7
9
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12

Figure 3 highlights some interesting patterns in relation to the 12 categories used to organize

IM research. Although some of the categories maintained constant relative weights over

the years studied, others reduced their comparative presence. For instance, internationalization

and foreign direct investment were constantly chosen as main topics in roughly 25% of all IM

research studies published yearly. International exchange and entry mode decisions decreased

their relative presence, corroborating the trend observed in Table 3 when comparing the 1996-

2000 and 2002-2006 periods. In contrast, four categories experienced a noteworthy increase in

their relative weights in 2002-2006. The global business environment, the subsidiary and multinational

team management, and, in a more irregular manner, the transfer of knowledge and the

multinational enterprises categories increased in relative importance.

The global business environment category has gained centrality as a consequence of the

increasing internationalization of economic activities. IM scholars have progressively focused

their attention on emerging economies and their peculiar institutional environments (Henisz

& Zelner, 2005; Meyer & Peng, 2005; Vaaler, Schrage, & Block, 2005). Environmental

matters have also gained prominence as a result of increased awareness of this topic (Child &

Tsai, 2005; Christmann, 2004; Christmann & Taylor, 2006). Moreover, issues concerned with

corporate governance and its evolution in a more globalized and interconnected world have

been the focus of an increasing number of studies (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Drori,

Yang, & Meyer, 2006; Khanna & Palepu, 2004; Weitzel & Berns, 2006). The Journal of

International Business Studies and the Academy of Management Review have published the

most IM articles dealing with these subjects recently.

The increases in the other three categories possibly document how management scholars

are adapting their IM research to the maturation of the knowledge-based economy and the

deepening integration of international economic activities that occurred in the last decade

(Dunning, 2000). Wealth-creating activities have become much more knowledge intensive

than before, and recent technological progress has given companies the opportunity to grow

on a global scale (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001). Such changes have radically altered

the way multinational enterprises compete in global markets: Whereas 20 years ago the competitive

advantage of firms was predominantly based on their capacity to internally produce

and organize proprietary assets and purposefully match them to local market needs, in the

past decade the emphasis has moved to firms’ capabilities to access and organize knowledge

intensive assets worldwide (Dunning, 2000).

IM scholars are increasingly focusing their research efforts on new models and strategies

for multinationals that can match the growing level of global integration characterizing a

number of industries (Kim, Park, & Prescott, 2003; London & Hart, 2004; Meyer, 2006).

Because companies now have the technological option to efficiently migrate a number of

white-collar activities to offshore locations (Doh, 2005), the capacity of transferring knowledge

across multiple settings is becoming a key research topic (Cummings, 2004; Hansen & Lovas,

2004; Martin & Salomon, 2003). The related creation of globally distributed professional

teams has generated new challenges related to the management of multinational

teams.

The

concept of global virtual teams (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Metiu,

2006) has thus gained centrality in IM studies and has significantly contributed to the increased

focus on subsidiary and multinational team management. The Journal of International

Business Studies has published most of the IM articles for each of the three categories. The

Strategic Management Journal has been an important platform for studies concerned with the

214 Journal of Management / April 2009

models and the strategies of multinational enterprises, Management Science for issues relative

to the transfer of knowledge, and Organization Science for works on geographically distributed

teams.

Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of this article was to tackle two major limitations identified in the body of published IM reviews. The first limitation was their failure to include a representative sample of management journals when searching for IM contributions (Inkpen, 2001). Previous reviews focused on a restricted number of journals, often limiting their search to journals exclusively dedicated to international matters (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000). This led to biased results that did not provide a real sense of the pervasiveness of IM contributions in the mainstream management area. The second limitation was the time periods considered, because most of the reviews investigated IM articles published before 2000 (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002).

2006. By using the methodology of Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002), I was

able to compare results across the different studies, hence providing a comprehensive review

of the field. In the second section, I identified patterns in the publication of IM research in

leading management journals, which resulted in some interesting findings.

My aim in this work was to contribute to the IM literature on two grounds. This article

provides an updated picture of the field, and it uncovers the current positioning of leading

management journals with respect to their exposure to IM research. Findings from this study

may prove extremely valuable for IM scholars interested in understanding the evolution of

IM research over time and the different IM publication patterns of top management journals.

The main conclusions of this study are the following. The findings confirm the generalized

notion (Inkpen, 2001; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002) that IM is steadily increasing

its presence in the management area. Although in the 1976-1980 period only 1.6% of the articles

published in the 20 selected journals belonged to IM research (Werner & Brouthers, 2002),

in 1996-2000 this percentage rose to 5.5% (Werner, 2002) and in 2002-2006 it reached almost

7%. In terms of the distribution of IM research across categories and journals, no dramatic

changes have occurred, especially in the last decade. The Journal of International Business

Studies continues to be the reference point for IM research. Furthermore, there continues to be

a high degree of concentration of IM studies in a few academic journals. Eight of the 20 journals

considered have consistently published more than 90% of all IM research over time, with

this figure being confirmed also for the 2002-2006 period.

The investigation of top management journals’ IM publication patterns provides insightful

indications of how outlets differentiate themselves in their exposure to IM topics. A preliminary

discussion on the selection of leading management journals led to the update of

Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list of top management journals, with the inclusion of

Organization Science and Organization Studies. These two outlets proved to be important

publishers of IM research and confirmed the relevance of their inclusion.

Pisani / International Management Research 215

In terms of the IM publication patterns of the management journals selected, the results

show that the journals that published most of IM research during the period studied, namely

the Journal of International Business Studies, the Management International Review, the

Strategic Management Journal, and the Journal of Management Studies, demonstrated a

more balanced distribution of published articles across the 12 categories. Conversely, the

management outlets that published a limited amount of IM research tended to specialize in

a few categories and consequently published mainly works related to a few IM research substreams.

This fact is rather ordinary in the academic world, because it is often the case that

a specific journal becomes the preferred and sometimes the only legitimate academic platform

for discussing a particular management research topic.

A more fine-grained analysis of the 2002-2006 period reveals some interesting material

with which to discuss key questions about the development of IM research. Why does IM

research continue to be highly concentrated in a few top management journals? The results

show that outlets that published less IM research tended to specialize in very few IM categories.

However, a yearly analysis of 2002-2006 confirms an emerging pattern in which journals

that were characterized by a restricted and more specific IM exposure steadily increased

their relative weights in the publication of IM articles. I hope this is a sign of their increased

awareness of the importance of IM research in the management area. It is difficult to forecast

whether their specialization in few IM categories will harm their further exposure to IM

research. Yet, the tendency to publish articles on few IM topics does not seem to be the only

important constraint. Issues related to the number and quality of IM articles submitted to

such journals as well as the presence of IM scholars on these journals’ editorial boards seem

to be relevant in understanding their current limited exposure to IM research.

Another key question deals with the direction of IM research in terms of its content:Will

certain categories become more relevant than others in the development of the IM field? The

results of this review provide a preliminary answer by delineating a surge of interest in four

categories. The global business environment is gaining prominence because the analysis of

the institutional variables of developing countries is becoming fundamental in understanding

the globalization of business. Multinational enterprises are changing their business

models and strategies to compete in newly internationalized markets. Recent progress in

telecommunications technology has reduced the costs of operating remotely (Nachum &

Zaheer, 2005), giving companies the opportunity to globally source individual value activities.

How to transfer knowledge across subsidiaries and how to handle geographically distributed

teams are topics that are attracting increasing research efforts in IM research. This

trend is expected to become even clearer, as multinational corporations are rapidly reconfiguring

themselves as “portfolios of capabilities and relationships positioned within a global

network of business processes” (Venkatraman, 2004: 16).

This study is not exempt of limitations. The subjective methodology used and its related disadvantages have already been discussed here. Furthermore, the analysis of the journals’ publication patterns does not include changes in their editorial boards. The difficulty of including such data is not related to the availability of this kind of information. Other studies have already used it, for example, to rank schools with an international business orientation (Chan et al., 2006). The complexity lies instead in the fact that it is difficult to fully capture the modifications made by a new editorial board in a 5-year period. This difficulty arises especially because the change of the editorial board in a journal is typically a lengthy process. Nonetheless, it is worth

216 Journal of Management / April 2009 stressing that editors remain key actors in defining journals’ publication patterns. Future research should thus investigate their precise role in determining the relative IM exposure of top management journals.

The high concentration of IM studies in a few top management journals also needs further consideration. The findings of this study confirm that most IM research is published in

a limited number of management outlets. Nonetheless, the results also illustrate an overall

steady increase of IM research in the management area as well as an increasing effort of certain

journals to enhance their IM exposure. We can hope that these findings are a positive

sign that IM matters will ultimately receive their deserved attention.

Reference

Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. 2005. Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation

analysis. International Business Review, 14: 616-639.

Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger?

Organization Studies, 25(3): 415-443.

Boddewyn, J. J. 1999. The domain of international management. Journal of International Management, 5: 3-14.

Chan, K. C., Fung, H. G., & Leung, K. 2006. International business research: Trends and school rankings.

International Business Review, 15: 317-338.

Child, J., & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in

emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 95-125.

Christmann, P. 2004. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental

policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 747-760.

Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of

symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 863-878.

Cummings, J. N. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization.

Management Science, 50(3): 352-364.

Doh, J. P. 2005. Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and

practice. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 695-704.

Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. J. 2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge

economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Drori, G. S., Jang, Y. S., & Meyer, J. W. 2006. Sources of rationalized governance: Cross-national longitudinal

analyses 1985-2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2): 205-229.

DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. 2000. Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business

Studies, 31(4): 689-704.

Dunning, J. H. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity.

International Business Review, 9: 163-190.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1992. Determinant of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 35(5): 921-955.

Hansen, M. T., & Lovas, B. 2004. How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving

from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9): 801-822.

Henisz,W. J., & Zelner, B. A. 2005. Legitimacy, interest group pressures, and change in emergent institutions: The

case of foreign investors and host country governments. Academy of Management Review, 30: 361-382.

Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams.

Organization Science, 14(6): 615-632.

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating

effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3): 290-307.

Inkpen, A. C. 2001. A note on ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies,

32(1): 193-196.

Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. 1994. An analysis of twenty-five years of research in the journal of international business

studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4): 703-713.

Pisani / International Management Research 217

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. 2007. What causes a management article to be cited—

Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 491-506.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2004. Globalization and convergence in corporate governance: Evidence from Infosys

and the Indian software industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 484-507.

Kim, K., Park, J. H., & Prescott, J. E. 2003. The global integration of business functions: A study of multinational businesses in integrated global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 327-344.

London, T., & Hart, S. L. 2004. Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the transnational model.

Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 350-370.

Lu, J. W. 2003. The evolving contributions in international strategic management research. Journal of International

Management, 9(2): 193-213.

Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational

corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 356-373.

Martinez, Z. L., & Toyne, B. 2000. What is international management, and what is its domain. Journal of

International Management, 6: 11-28.

Metiu, A. 2006. Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17(4): 418-435.

Meyer, K. E. 2006. Global focusing: From domestic conglomerates to global specialists. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(5): 1109-1144.

Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources,

and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 600-621.

Morrison, A. J., & Inkpen, A. C. 1991. An analysis of significant contributions to the international business literature.

Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1): 143-153.

Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. 2005. The persistence of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for

foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8): 747-767.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2005. The influence of management journal

in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 473-488.

Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. 2004. New frontiers in international strategy.

Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 175-200.

Ricks, D. A. 1985. International business research: past, present and future. Journal of International Business

Studies, 16: 1-4.

Ricks, D. A. 1991. Letter from the editor-in-chief. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 1-4.

Ricks, D. A., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. 1990. Recent developments in international management research. Journal

of Management, 16(2): 219-253.

Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of

Management, 29: 883-902.

Vaaler, P. M., Schrage, B. N., & Block, S. A. 2005. Counting the investor vote: Political business cycle effects on

sovereign bond spreads in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 62-88.

Van Fleet, D. D., McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. 2000. A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings:

the case of formal lists. Journal of Management, 26(5): 839-861.

Venkatraman, N. V. 2004. Offshoring without guilt. Sloan Management Review, 45(3): 14-16.

Weitzel, U., & Berns, S. 2006. Cross-border takeovers, corruption, and related aspects of governance. Journal of

International Business Studies, 37(6): 786-806.

Werner, S. 2002. Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals.

Journal of Management, 28(3): 277-305.

Werner, S., & Brouthers, L. E. 2002. How international is management? Journal of International Business Studies,

33(3): 583-591.

Yang, Z., Wang, X., & Su, C. 2006. A review of research methodologies in international business. International

Business Review, 15: 601-617.

218 Journal of Management / April 2009

Reference

Pisani, N. (2009). International management research: Investigating its recent diffusion in top management journals. Journal of Management, 35(2), 199. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197138137?accountid=34899

THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: TAKING A BITE OUT OF BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

false

Pacini, Carl

Press the Escape key to close

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

17.2

(

2012

-589

Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers

Abstract (summary)

Translate Abstract

Undo Translation

TranslateUndo Translation

Press the Escape key to close

FromTo

Translate

Translation in progress…

[[missing key: loadingAnimation]]

The full text may take 40-60 seconds to translate; larger documents may take longer.

Cancel

Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) has reached an all-time high. FCPA violations can result in many significant costs, both monetary and non-monetary. FCPA compliance has become a top corporate governance issue and has triggered shareholder litigation, tax investigations, and money laundering probes. While many corporate managers, financial officers, board members, internal and external auditors, and forensic accountants are aware of the FCPA’s basic objectives and mandates, many may not do an adequate job of protecting their firms and/or clients from the dangerous consequences that can result from FCPA non-compliance. The purposes of this paper are to: (1) analyze and describe bribery and FCPA case filings, sanctions, payments (bribes), and value of business to be obtained; (2) describe and analyze the important provisions of the FCPA; and (3) make recommendations to help firms improve their compliance with the FCPA.

[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

You have requested “on-the-fly” machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation.

Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from.

Hide full disclaimer

Translations powered by LEC.

Full text

Translate Full text

Undo Translation
TranslateUndo Translation

Press the Escape key to close
FromTo

Translate

Translation in progress…
[[missing key: loadingAnimation]]
The full text may take 40-60 seconds to translate; larger documents may take longer.

Cancel

Turn on search term navigation

Jump to first hit

Headnote

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

In February 2010, BAE Systems reached settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office totaling $450 million.1 The settlements involved an alleged violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)2 in connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania.3 In January 2010, the DOJ arrested 22 employees and executives of firms in the military products industry.4 They were indicted on charges of bribing government officials in an African country to obtain a presidential guard business.5 In April of 2010, Charles Jumet of Virginia was “sentenced to 87 months in prison for paying bribes to former Panamanian government officials to secure maritime contracts.”6 In May of 201 1, “a jury convicted Lindsey Manufacturing Co., two of its executives, and a Mexican sales agent in a bribery case.”7 This marked the first time a company has been convicted at trial for violations of the FCPA.8

In 2000, there was one FCPA case pursued by the federal government. In 2009, there were 67 cases filed by the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (see Table 1). These facts highlight the growing priority given to FCPA enforcement by the DOJ and the SEC. The Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, insists that aggressive prosecution of the FCPA “should make clear to every corporate executive, every board member, and every sales agent that [the DOJ] will seek to hold you personally accountable for FCPA violations.”9 “The increase in FCPA prosecutions over the past several years can be attributed to an increase in voluntary reporting by corporations . . . increased international law enforcement cooperation, . . . a renewed focus on internal controls, the Sarbanes-Oxley requirement of executive certifications,” proactive law enforcement investigations, and the global anti-fraud climate.10

U.S. firms competing for international business need to pay close attention to several trends. First, the number of FCPA cases and the severity of penalties will increase as the DOJ and SEC emphasize enforcement. Second, FCPA compliance will become a top corporate governance issue leading to more rigorous compliance. Third, international harmonization of antifraud and anticorruption regulation will lead to more parallel investigations and increased penalties. Fourth, “FCPA investigations may trigger other actions such as shareholder litigation, tax investigations, and money-laundering probes.”11 While many corporate managers, financial officers, general counsels, compliance officers, and internal and external auditors are aware of the FCPA, “companies could benefit considerably from both increasing their knowledge and awareness of the FCPA and improving their capabilities to mitigate the risk of bribery and corruption.”12

This Article provides a close look at the requirements imposed on U.S. and some foreign firms by the FCPA in the context of the emerging trends noted above. The purposes of this article are to: (1) analyze and describe bribery and FCPA case filings, sanctions, payments (bribes), and value of business to be obtained; (2) describe and analyze the important provisions of the FCPA; (3) analyze vicarious liability under the FCPA; and (4) make recommendations to help firms improve their compliance with the FCPA.

I. WHAT IS BRIBERY?

A bribe is an illegal and/or unethical business transaction that involves “the offering, promising, or giving something in order to influence a public official in the execution of his/her official duties.”13 A key element that distinguishes unacceptable payments is the corruption of a relationship of trust.14 In the public sector, “a bribe is an inducement that influences a public official to perform his or her duties in a manner contrary to the course that might otherwise be adopted.”15

One distinctive element of bribery is the quid pro quo – the sense that office is abused in exchange for the benefit conferred.16 Two types of benefits may be conferred upon bribe-givers: (1) “according-to-rule” and (2) “against-the-rule” benefits.17 “According-to-rule benefits confer something on the bribe-giver that the briber should have received under the rules; the bribe-taker acts in a manner that he or she should have done anyway.”18 According-to-rule benefits are “grease” or “facilitation” payments. “These payments consist of small payments to a person to obtain a favor such as expediting an administrative process; obtaining a permit, license, or service; or avoiding an abuse of power.”19

An against-the-rule benefit is more egregious and “is exemplified by the award of a contract to a party who should not have won the contract. The abuse of office here-usually occurring in exchange for large sums of money-involves the discretion of the public official. Bribes paid to secure this type of benefit are referred to as ‘kickbacks’ or ‘grand corruption.'”20 Political or grand corruption involves relatively large sums paid to alter policy formulation, legislation, and major contract awards, which are tailored to favor narrowly defined private interests. “When the payment involves relatively large sums of money given with the aim of enticing the official to commit an illegal act to the advantage of the person making the payment, ‘subornation’ occurs.”21 “Subornation is a request for officials to ‘look the other way,’ not to do their jobs, to do the job more quickly, or even to knowingly break the law.”22 “The degree of abuse tends to rise with the rank of the official involved.”23

A second distinctive element of bribery involves the institutional positions of bribe-payers and bribe recipients. Are they agents or principals? Only payments made to agents can be classified as bribes.24 The possibility of bribery arises from the divergent interests of agents and principals and from information asymmetry, which gives agents a great deal of discretionary power. “Opportunities for corruption depend on the size of rents in the control of public agents, the discretion they have in allocating them, and their lack of a sense of accountability to society.”25 Moreover, the trade of public goods illegally against payoffs creates a market for corruption at the risk of having to pay a penalty.26

Bribery is a crime of calculation: public officials weigh the expected benefits from corrupt behavior against the punishment imposed by society if they get caught. The transaction costs of illegal exchanges are important for maintaining secrecy. As bribery arrangements confer no property rights, the bribe-giver may fail to provide the service as agreed, may provide low quality goods and/or services, or may charge inflated prices. Such contracts are risky because agents have no court of law to which they can resort to in the event of a dispute.27 Bribery is even more distortive than excessive taxes because bribery must be done in secret.28

II. THE EXTENT OF BRIBERY

Precise quantitative estimates of the dollar amount of bribery are impossible to obtain since neither bribe-givers nor bribe-takers disclose the extent of their activities. The World Bank Institute has estimated that the total amount of bribes paid per year may be $1 trillion.29 According to Ernst & Young’s 10th Global Fraud Survey, about 23% of almost 1200 corporations across 33 nations admitted their organizations had been approached to pay a bribe to retain or obtain business during the prior two years.30 In the 2010 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, corruption schemes were found in one-third of fraud situations and represented a median loss of $250,000.31

Another indication of the extent of the bribery problem is the number of bribery scandals reported by the press. Huang Guangyu, a Chinese business tycoon who founded Gome Electrical Appliances, was formally charged with bribery, insider trading, and illegal business dealings.32 Another Chinese investigation uncovered construction project-related bribery activities that occurred over an 18-month period from 2009 to 201 1 involving around three billion Yuan in construction contracts.33 Former Prince George’s County executive Jack B. Johnson admitted in federal court that he accepted over $400,000 in bribes.34 According to a RCMP search warrant, Adriano Furgiuele, a former “auditor at the Canada Revenue Agency received $150,000 from the president of a company shortly after it got a favourable tax ruling.”35 Tay Ee Tiong, a seafood supplier in Singapore, pled guilty to twenty counts of bribery for paying almost $1 million in kickbacks to nineteen chefs at high-end Chinese restaurants.36

III. ANALYSIS OF AND TRENDS IN FCPA CASES

Available data on FCPA cases filed by the SEC and the DOJ for the years 2000-2009 was extracted and analyzed. The analysis considers the number of cases filed by the SEC and the DOJ, cases disposed of and pending, cases against corporations and individuals, and cases against foreign corporations. This paper also assesses SEC and DOJ monetary sanctions, total and mean value of business obtained, total and mean amount of bribes (or payments), and ratio of bribes to value of business obtained. In numerous instances, insufficient or no data was available. The assessment of FCPA cases is outlined below and is based on the data in Table 1 .

One distinct trend is that SEC and DOJ enforcement efforts have become more aggressive. Table 1 indicates that 232 FCPA cases were initiated during the years 2000-2009. The number of FCPA cases filed annually escalated considerably after 2004. Over 80% of case filings in the decade ending in 2009 occurred during the years 2005-2009. In 2005, 14 cases were initiated compared to 67 in 2009. Approximately 64% of FCPA cases in the years 2000-2009 were initiated by the DOJ. Specifically, the majority of the cases filed contributing to this rise have involved DOJ criminal cases. In 2006, seven DOJ criminal cases were filed. In 2009, that number rose to 52. Moreover, slightly more than 80% of FCPA cases have been resolved without going to trial. The SEC and DOJ today have between 70 and 80 FCPA investigations underway at any given time.37 The DOJ and SEC have shown an increased willingness to bring enforcement actions against individuals. In fact, Table 1 shows that, in sum, more cases have been brought against individuals than corporations during the years 2000-2009. In 2007 and 2008, more FCPA cases were initiated against corporations than individuals. In 2009, however, almost three times as many cases were brought against individuals as compared to corporations (50 vs. 17). The SEC and DOJ are sending a clear message that individuals will be held liable for FCPA violations even when acting within the scope of their employment.

A review of the enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (“OECD Anti-Bribery Convention”) by Transparency International shows that the U.S. is the most aggressive country in prosecuting bribery. Although enforcement by the other 37 member nations is improving, the U.S. accounted for 41% of criminal case sanctions (including deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs)) from 1999 to 2009 among all 38 parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention38 From 1999 to 2009, twenty-three OECD countries imposed no criminal sanctions on individuals or legal persons for foreign bribery.39 Despite increased FCPA enforcement, U.S. corporations continue to pay bribes out of business necessity because of the leniency of other countries.40

Table 1 demonstrates a pattern of increasing monetary sanctions in both SEC and DOJ cases during the last decade. Both total and mean monetary sanctions have increased considerably. In 2004, total SEC monetary sanctions were $16.4 million. In 2007, SEC monetary sanctions exceeded $86 million. Total SEC monetary sanctions were over $200 million in 2008 and 2009. For 2008, the mean sanction was over $33 million. Moreover, total DOJ monetary sanctions climbed significantly throughout the last decade. In 2004, total DOJ monetary sanctions were just over $6 million. In 2008 and 2009, such sanctions exceeded $400 million. Mean monetary sanctions escalated from $3 million in 2004 to over $30 million in 2008 and 2009. Total monetary sanctions have increased for two reasons. First, the rise in the number of FCPA cases has increased the total monetary sanctions collected by the government. Second, the size or amount of the fines levied has also escalated.

Table 1 presents a summary of data on total and mean values of business obtained by bribers, the amount of bribes or payments, and the mean ratio of payments to business obtained in SEC cases. A lack of available data makes it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions about the value of business obtained for the years 2000-2004. However, in the second half of the last decade, a steady increase occurred in the total value and mean value of business obtained, except from 2008 to 2009. This decline may be attributable to the severe global recession. Table 1 highlights an increase in the mean amount of bribes paid to foreign public officials since 2005. One cannot conclude, however, that more money is being spent on bribes to obtain or retain a dollar’s worth of business. One must consider the mean ratio of bribes paid to business obtained. Since 2005, this ratio has varied from 1.3% to over 27%. From 2005 to 2009, the weighted average ratio of bribes paid to business obtained was about .1533. This means that, on average, bribe-givers spend just over $0.15 in bribes for each $1 in business obtained or retained in SEC cases.

Table 1 also summarizes the total and mean values of business obtained by bribe-givers, the amount of bribes or payments, and the mean ratio of payments to business obtained in DOJ cases. Since 2005, the total value of business obtained rose from about $751 million to $6.5 billion in 2009. A decrease occurred from $9.5 billion in 2008 to $6.5 billion in 2009. This reflects a similar decline in the total value of business obtained in SEC cases. The mean value of business obtained increased from $37.3 million per case in 2005 to $225 million per case in 2009. The mean value of business obtained per case was lower in 2009 than it was in 2007 and 2008, but still significantly higher than in 2005.

In 2005, the total amount of bribes paid increased exponentially compared to the early 2000s (except 2004). Total bribery payments then tailed off significantly in 2006 for DOJ cases. A look at total bribery payments for the years 2006-2009 shows both a substantial increase and great volatility. The same pattern exists for the mean amount of bribery payments in DOJ cases.

An interesting statistic is the mean ratio of bribery payments to business obtained for DOJ cases. This ratio shows a relatively steady increase for the years 2004-2009. The weighted average ratio of bribes to the value of business obtained for 2000 to 2009 (excluding 2000 and 2003 for lack of data) is .1390 for DOJ cases. This is slightly lower than the weighted average of .1533 for SEC cases. This means that bribe payers spend about $0.14 for each $1 in business obtained or retained in DOJ cases.

Another clear trend in FCPA enforcement is increased cooperation between U.S. and foreign law enforcement authorities.41 The DOJ is working closely with its sister agencies, especially in Western Europe, “to share evidence and theories and obtain access to witnesses.”42 “The Norwegian energy company Statoil ASA became the subject of the first criminal FCPA enforcement action against a non-U. S. company over a plan to bribe an Iranian government official in exchange for oil and gas development contracts.”43 There have been other cases involving FCPA prosecution of foreign firms since Statoil ASA. Other cases include

United States

v. Veteo Gray Controls, Inc.,44 United States v. Technip S.A.,45 and United States v. Naaman.46 The trend towards increased global FCPA enforcement continues unabated with numerous actions against foreign companies, sending the message that businesses must stop engaging in bribery to obtain or retain business. “Among the developments that are anticipated are widespread multi-jurisdictional anti-bribery efforts with facilitated cross-border evidence gathering, asset seizures, speedy extradition, and increased scrutiny of American firms abroad, often without constitutional safeguards.”47

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Two central themes are captured by the FCPA. The first is that no entity or person may offer or pay anything of value to the official of a foreign government or certain international organizations that would cause the official to misuse power or influence to benefit a business interest of any entity or person.48 The second is that if any payment is made to an official, whether the purpose is proper or corrupt, the payment must be reported in the payer’s financial statements according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).49

In 1998, Congress amended the FCPA anti-bribery provisions, implementing the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.50 The amendments extended the jurisdictional reach of the anti-bribery provisions to U.S. persons or entities acting outside the U.S. and nonU.S. persons acting within U.S. territory.51 The amendments also added the words “securing any improper advantage” as a prohibited purpose to the FCPA’s existing list, defined “foreign official” to include officials of public international organizations (e.g., the World Bank), and extended criminal penalties of the FCPA anti-bribery provisions to foreign employees and agents of U.S. entities.52

In July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.53 Section 922 grants significant protections and rewards to individuals who voluntarily provide the SEC with original information relating to the violation of the FCPA (and other securities laws). Individuals (apart from certain ineligible persons such as law enforcement officers) who provide original information that leads to the assessment of monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million are entitled to receive between 10% and 30% of the sanction amount as a reward.54 No award will be made, however, to any whistleblower who gains the information through an audit of financial statements of a publicly traded firm.55 The law provides a private right of action in federal court for whistleblowers regardless of administrative delay.56 Dodd-Frank also increases the statute of limitations for whistleblower protection actions to six years following the alleged violation.57

It is not yet certain that the new whistleblower provisions will increase the quality of reporting and improve fraud detection.58 In addition, the 10% floor on rewards might not be cost effective. “There is little evidence in the legislative history of Dodd-Frank that Congress contemplated whether the law’s costs might exceed the residual amount of fraud enforcement proceeds in the Investor Protection Fund once bounties are paid from the Fund.”59 Also, the reward or bounty program may lead to unnecessary litigation as the law entitles whistleblowers to appeal the amount of any award granted by the SEC.60

A. ANTI-BRIBERY PROVISIONS

The basic elements of any FCPA bribery violation are: (1) a private or publicly traded firm or any foreign person in the U.S.; (2) who corruptly; (3) pays or offers to pay money or anything of value; (4) to a foreign official or a foreign political party or to any person while knowing that all or part of the payment will be offered or paid to a foreign official; (5) for the purpose of influencing the official to obtain, retain, or direct business to any person or to secure an improper advantage.61 All elements must be proven by credible evidence for the SEC and/or DOJ to prevail in a case.

V. WHO IS COVERED BY THE ANTI-BRIBERY PROVISIONS?

The anti-bribery provisions are broader than the accounting/internal control provisions of the FCPA. The former apply to “issuers,” “domestic concerns” and “foreign persons” acting within the U.S.62 An “issuer” is a public company subject to the registration or reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which includes firms using American Depositary Receipts (that are listed on an American exchange).63 A “domestic concern” is any business (including those privately or family owned) that has its principal place of business in the U.S. or is organized under the laws of the U.S., its states, territories or possessions.64 In addition, citizens, nationals, or residents of the U.S. are “domestic concerns.”65 Officers, directors, employees, agents and stockholders of foreign persons are also subject to the FCPA if they commit a violation while in the U.S. The FCPA provides that a foreign citizen, who is an agent of a domestic concern, is subject to the anti-bribery provisions even for acts committed outside the U.S.66 A recent FCPA enforcement action demonstrated the government’s willingness to prosecute U.S. companies and executives for business activity occurring entirely abroad, despite domestic-based personnel’s lack of direct knowledge and participation.67

Generally, the activities of a foreign subsidiary or joint venture of a U.S. corporation are not subject to the FCPA.68 The U.S. government “could have jurisdiction over acts (and those who authorize such acts) that occur outside the U.S. if such acts trigger or cause further acts to occur within the territory of the United States.”69 Moreover, a U.S. parent may be held liable for the foreign subsidiary’s acts if the relationship between the parent and affiliate is legally close.70 Monitoring of all international business activity is vital to U.S.-based international business.

Two possible means exist to reach foreign affiliates under the FCPA: (1) through the direct liability of either the affiliate or its officials or both; (2) holding either the parent, its officials or both, liable for the actions of the affiliate. As to the first means, the FCPA provides for direct liability of the foreign affiliate of a U.S. firm (or any officer, director, employee, agent or stockholder acting on the affiliate’s behalf) if the affiliate is publicly traded or causes an act in furtherance of the bribe to occur in a U.S. territory.71 In U.S. v. DPC Tianjin, Ltd.,12 for example, the DOJ treated a Chinese subsidiary as an agent of the U.S. parent for purposes of anti-bribery violations. DPC Tianjin paid about $1.6 million in “improper commissions,” over an 11 -year period, to doctors and laboratory personnel of state-owned hospitals.73 The commissions were approved by the general manager of DPC Tianjin and booked in that firm’s financial statements as “selling expenses.”74 DPC Tianjin routinely sent these financial statements to its parent’s headquarters in Los Angeles where they were included in consolidated financial statements. Acts that occurred in U.S. territory in furtherance of bribes included faxes, telephone calls and emails with the U.S. parent. The FCPA’ s reach over agents of issuers requires merely the use of interstate commerce related to some act in furtherance of an improper payment. This is one of a few cases that demonstrates the ability of enforcement agencies to reach the activities of foreign affiliates despite their technical exclusion from the statute’s coverage.

It is more common for a U.S. parent, venture, or personnel to be liable for the corrupt practices of foreign affiliates. One basis for parent company liability turns on whether or not the parent participated in the improper conduct. The FCPA itself provides for direct parent liability under these conditions or scenarios: (1) the commission of an act in furtherance of an improper payment by the parent; (2) the “authorization” by the parent of the affiliate’s action; or (3) a direct offer, promise or transfer of value by the parent.75 The parent is not liable absent knowledge of the corrupt purpose of the payment.76

Given the broad definition of “knowledge” accepted by the courts, criminal liability may be based on parent acquiescence (which is less than direct knowledge) in an affiliate’s corrupt payments. “A critical issue for parent companies facing FCPA liability will be the extent to which suspicious payments made by a subsidiary were documented and discussed with the parent.”77 If the books and records of the affiliate accurately reflect the use of assets to make bribery payments to foreign officials, then the parent has notice of corrupt behavior.78 If the parent takes no action then it may be deemed to have constructive knowledge of the payments.79

VI. When Is a Payment Made “Corruptly?”

The FCPA renders it illegal to make a payment “corruptly” to a foreign official or to “corruptly” commit any act within the U.S. in pursuit of prohibited conduct. The statute itself does not define the term “corruptly.” The lack of a statutory definition presents problems for corporate counsel, corporate executives, board members, and regulators. The legislative history of the FCPA provides some guidance.

The statute’s legislative history indicates Congress’ intent: [T]he word ‘corruptly’ is used in order to make clear that the offer, payment, promise or gift must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position in order to wrongfully direct business to the payer … or to obtain preferential legislation or a favorable regulation. The word ‘corruptly’ connotes an evil motive or purpose, an intent to wrongfully influence the recipients.80

Case law also yields insight into the meaning of “corruptly.” One leading case that analyzes the meaning of “corruptly” under the FCPA is United States v. Liebo.*1 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s jury instruction regarding the meaning of “corruptly”:

[T]he offer, promise to pay, payment, or authorization of payment, must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position or to influence someone to do so and that an act is “corruptly” done if done voluntarily and intentionally, and with a bad purpose of accomplishing either an unlawful end or result, or lawful end or result by some unlawful method or means.82

A defendant need not be aware of the actual statutory provision nor know of the FCPA’ s existence to be found guilty of an anti-bribery violation.83 The statute does require either the intent to influence an official act or a quid pro quo element.84 The bribe or illegal gratuity must be linked to a specific government action or meet the requirement that some particular official act be identified and proved.85

VII. Anything of Value

Although the FCPA does not define the term “anything of value,” the law prohibits not only consummated bribes but also unaccepted offers of bribes. Recent enforcement actions indicate that there are virtually no limitations on what can be considered “anything of value.” In the enforcement action against Kellogg, Brown and Root LLC and various other Halliburton Company affiliates, “things of value” provided to Nigerian officials included cash-stuffed briefcases and/or cash-loaded vehicles left in hotel parking lots.86 In contrast to this case, a FCPA action against UTStarcom, Inc. involved providing executive training programs at U.S. universities to Chinese officials even though the programs “were not specifically related to [the company’s] products or business.”87 The payment or offer of payment of “anything of value” includes employment of officials as consultants, expense paid travel, loans with favorable interest rates and repayment terms, golf outings, sports equipment, transportation of household goods, discounts and college scholarships.88 Courts often consider whether the defendant subjectively attached value to the item in question.89

VIII. Who Is a “Foreign Official?”

The FCPA broadly defines a “foreign official” as:

[A]ny officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality.90

The OECD Convention defines a “foreign public official” as any person in a foreign country who holds a legislative, administrative, or judicial office, or who exercises a public function, including a public agency or enterprise. The term also covers officials of public international organizations.91

Under the FCPA, “a foreign official is anyone who acts in an official capacity for a foreign government and who exercises some discretionary authority,” which includes “an officer of a foreign government” and even “an officer in its armed forces.”92 The term also covers any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of a state-owned enterprise or business.93

The FCPA does not provide guidance concerning what types of entities are “instrumentalities” of a foreign government such that their employees are “foreign officials.”94 It remains unclear what level of government ownership or control will make a business an “agency or instrumentality” of the state. Despite the lack of guidance, the DOJ and SEC broadly interpret the definition of “foreign official” in application to state-owned enterprises.95

One of the most aggressive agency interpretations of “foreign official” in the context of a state-owned enterprise occurred in the KBR/Halliburton case.96 The SEC and DOJ claimed that officers and employees of Nigeria LNG Limited (“NLNG”) were “foreign officials” even though NLNG was 51% owned by multinational oil companies and 49% owned by Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).97 The enforcement agencies claimed that effective control of NLNG belonged to NNPC.98 The DOJ has indicated that the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed, including “the precise percentage of government ownership, whether the government has veto power of shareholder decisions, and the extent to which the government participates in day-today administration of the entity.”99

The DOJ and SEC interpretation(s) of “foreign official” have yet to be tested in a federal appellate court. The significance of such a test is growing since the agency interpretation has become central to many enforcement actions in recent years.100 Indeed, a clear federal appellate court interpretation would reduce uncertainty for business, although the high settlement rate for FCPA cases nevertheless evidences a reluctance on the part of U.S. businesses to litigate such difficult issues.

The need for a clear court interpretation increases as business ownership arrangements evolve on a global scale. For example, government efforts around the globe to stimulate economies may have created a new type of foreign official. Government ownership has increased substantially in many economies. Financial institutions, sovereign wealth funds and other organizations involve heavy government ownership positions.101 Are employees of these firms “foreign officials” under the FCPA?

IX. The Knowledge Requirement

The FCPA criminalizes both direct bribes and payments to intermediaries for the purpose of bribing foreign officials. While proving that a FCPA defendant knew or had knowledge that a payment to a foreign official was unlawful is often not an issue in direct bribery cases, it often becomes a contentious point in cases involving third party agents. In such cases, the FCPA outlaws payments to any person “while ‘knowing1 that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised, to any foreign official for a purpose prohibited by the FCPA.”102

The FCPA itself provides that a person has knowledge or is “knowing” when (1) “such person is aware that such person is engaging in such conduct, that such circumstance exists, or that such result is substantially certain to occur,” or (2) “such person has a firm belief that such circumstance exists or that such result is substantially certain to occur.”103 The statute defines conscious avoidance as “knowledge of the existence of a particular circumstance,” established by being “aware of a high probability of the existence of such circumstance, unless the person actually believes that such circumstance does not exist.”104

Clearly, the statutory definition of “knowing” is much broader than just actual knowledge. Until recently, the SEC and DOJ believed that the knowledge requirement could be met by a showing that a FCPA defendant had failed to perform adequate due diligence (with regard to red flags that a third party could possibly make improper payments). Such a “knowing” standard is intended to capture business managers or owners who fail to take action when red flags of a FCPA violation arise.

In United States v. Kozeny,105 a federal district court ruled that this was an incorrect interpretation of the “knowledge” requirement. Bourke, a designer of handbags, had invested $8 million in a business venture (formed by Czech expatriate Victor Kozeny) that contemplated purchasing an Azerbaijani oil company.106 Kozeny purportedly paid bribes to Azerbaijani government officials in a failed effort to buy the state-owned oil company.107 A jury convicted Bourke of conspiring to violate the anti-bribery provisions.108 In a court brief, the government argued that Bourke’ s failure to conduct adequate due diligence, plus awareness of a high probability that there were bribes, satisfied the knowledge requirement.109 Nevertheless, the district court found that the knowledge requirement cannot be met merely by a failure to perform adequate due diligence.110 Bourke could be found to have knowledge only because he took affirmative steps to avoid knowledge, and he possessed awareness of a high probability that there were bribes.111

The Second Circuit opinion in United States v. Jacobs112 and the legislative history of the 1988 amendments to the FCPA113 support the Kozeny court’s analysis of the knowledge requirement. The Kozeny decision rejected the efforts of the DOJ and SEC to return the FCPA to the more lax standard of “reason to know” that prevailed before the 1988 amendments to the FCPA.114 Mere negligence in not performing due diligence does not satisfy the FCPA knowledge requirement.

X. Influencing an Official to Obtain or Retain Business or Secure an Improper Advantage

The fifth element of the anti-bribery provision – also called the business nexus requirement – requires that a FCPA violator must take some action to influence a foreign official to “obtain or retain . . . , to direct business to any person, or to obtain an improper advantage.”115 Congress did not define these terms, but limited judicial guidance supports a broad interpretation. “Business” is not limited to foreign government contracts but includes any commercial activity.116 In U.S. v. Kay,nl the issue before the court concerned whether payments to Haitian officials for lowering customs duties and sales taxes satisfied the business nexus requirement. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the FCPA’s legislative history, deeming the words “obtain or retain business” to be ambiguous.118 Although the court held that making payments to foreign officials to lower customs duties and taxes could provide an unfair advantage and assist the payer in obtaining or retaining business,119 such payments do not automatically satisfy the business nexus element of the FCPA.120 The Fifth Circuit noted that the FCPA’s legislative history shows that Congress intended to extend liability to situations where bribes improved business opportunities (in addition to allowing an entity to obtain or retain business).121 The Kay decision broadened the scope of the business nexus element to cover payments made to gain a comparative advantage or improve business opportunity (or obtain an improper advantage).122

Indeed, the SEC and DOJ continue to interpret the fifth element broadly to include payments intended to influence governmental decisions having a positive impact on a defendant’s business. For example, in U.S. v. Veteo Gray Controls, Inc., various subsidiaries of Veteo Gray paid a $26 million fine for paying bribes to customs officials in Nigeria to obtain preferential treatment in the customs clearance process and in the importation of equipment. The charges did not specifically allege that the payments were made to “obtain or retain business.”124 Nevertheless, Veteo Gray did not contest the government’s interpretation of the phrase.125

A. Exceptions and Limitations

I. Facilitating or Expediting Payments

Congress created a “facilitating payments” exception to the FCPA in recognition of the fact that small “grease” payments are “a cost of doing business” in many countries.126 The exception was created in 1988 when corporations complained that international business with the United States would suffer substantially without these payments.127 The FCPA’s legislative history includes a four-factor test to help distinguish between facilitating payments and illegal payments for “obtaining or retaining business.”128 With regard to payment purpose, Congress sought to criminalize: (1) payments intended to alter discretionary decisionmaking so as to increase the payer’s business; (2) payments that are unusually large in relation to the government action done; (3) payments that directly affect competition in contracts; and (4) payments in exchange for services to which the bribe-giver is not entitled.129 Various courts that have considered the “facilitating payments” exception have noted the importance of these four factors; and the test was actually adopted in U.S. v. Kay.130

Moreover, SEC administrative proceedings provide some insight into how that agency evaluates this exception. The SECs treatment of the “facilitating payments” exception provides guidance for understanding its application within organizations covered by the antibribery provisions. SEC publications emphasize the significance of two factors: “the discrectionary nature of the acts performed and the degree to which the payor was entitled to the benefits of the payee’s performance.”131 In 2004, for example, BJ Services Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC concerning several alleged bribes, including a $10,000 payment to a representative of Argentina’s Secretary of Industry and Commerce.132 BJ Services paid the official to hasten the importation of business equipment held up for delivery.133 A payment made to expedite the customs process is an example of a facilitating payment and is permissible under the FCPA.134 Although the SEC did not expressly state that the payment fell within the FCPA exception, the SECs separate treatment of the payment shows the agency considered it distinguishable.135

The FCPA indicates that payments to expedite the following routine governmental actions are deemed “facilitating payments”:

(i) obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country;

(ii) processing governmental papers, such as visas and work orders;

(iii) providing police protection, mail pickup and delivery, or scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or inspections related to transit of goods across country;

(iv) providing phone service, power and water supply, loading peri and unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products or commodities from deterioration ….136

The FCPA contains no cap on the amount of a “facilitating payment,” but in practice those permitted have been under U.S.

$1000.137 Moreover, it is imperative that any “facilitating payment” be accurately recorded on the payer’s books.138 Great care must be exercised in making “facilitating payments” given the amorphous nature of the exception.139

XL Affirmative Defenses

One affirmative defense is if a payment is “lawful under the written laws and regulations” of the foreign official’s country.140 Notably, “lawful under written law” is different from being consistent with local custom and practice.141 Likewise, the defense is also not activated by the lack of or non-existence of written laws in the foreign official’s country.142 In United States v. Kozeny, Frederic Bourke attempted to invoke this defense by contending that payments made to Azeri officials were lawful under the laws of Azerbaijan because they were selfreported and no Azeri prosecution would ensue.143 The claim that failure to prosecute bribery is tacit approval of such activity was dismissed by the trial court.144 No country in the world – even those with the most pervasive cultures of corruption – authorizes bribes under its written laws.145

A second affirmative defense is available for “reasonable and bona fide expenditures, such as travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of a foreign official” that are directly related to “(A) the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services; or (B) the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government.”146 The government strictly construes this defense, knowing that firms will use it as a means of hiding excessive payments under the guise of reasonable promotional expenses.147 In U.S. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,m the DOJ found that expenses were excessive. An engineering firm submitted a bid for work on an Egyptian infrastructure project. On two occasions, the engineering firm paid for first-class airfare from Egypt and luxury hotel accommodations for an Egyptian official, his wife and children.

Affirmative defenses are just that; they are not exceptions. A party charged with a FCPA violation must prove that the payments satisfy the affirmative defense.

A. Lack of a Private Right of Action

The FCPA itself has no private right of action. Further, case law has held that no private right of action is implied by the FCPA statute.149 FCPA enforcement actions, however, have given rise to FCPA-derived lawsuits by plaintiffs, including shareholders, other governments and business partners. In In re Immucor Inc. Securities Litigation^ shareholder-plaintiffs brought a § 10(b) lawsuit after Immucor’ s stock price fell upon the initiation of a FCPA investigation by the SEC. Immucor agreed to settle the suit for $2.5 million.151 In February 2008, technology firm FARO settled a class-action securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders for $6.9 million in connection with payments made by the company in its Chinese operations.152 In another case, Las Vegas Sands shareholders filed a derivative lawsuit against various company officers in federal court alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and conspiracy involving alleged improper bribes in violation of the FCPA.153 Conduct that violates the anti-bribery provisions may also give rise to a private cause of action for treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),154 or to actions under other federal or state laws.

B. Use of Related Statutes

The BAE Systems case (in which the company plead guilty to conspiracy and violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the FCPA) demonstrates that federal enforcement agencies sometimes rely on other statutes that are complementary to the FCPA.155 Complementary statutes such as export control laws,156 false statement statutes,157 mail and wire fraud158 and money laundering laws159 may be employed in bringing bribery-related charges. In essence, the FCPA is not the only anti-corruption statute on which U.S. businesses should be focused. Indeed, complementary statutes also permit regulatory authorities to seek harsher penalties.

C. Accounting and Internal Control Provisions

I. Keep Accurate and Complete Books and Records

Publicly traded firms are required to “make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company.”160 The recordkeeping provisions are intended to prevent three types of improprieties: (1) the failure to record illegal transactions; (2) the falsification of records to conceal illegal transactions; and (3) the creation of records that are quantitatively accurate but fail to specify qualitative aspects of the transaction.161 No materiality requirement applies with regard to making and keeping accurate financial records.

Although the FCPA does not define “books, records, and accounts,” the statute applies to a wide variety of corporate records. For FCPA purposes, records include “accounts, correspondence, memorandums, tapes, disks, papers, books, and other documents or transcribed information of any type whether expressed in ordinary or machine language.”162 One federal court has observed that “virtually any tangible embodiment of information made or kept by an issuer is within the scope of [the accounting provisions].”163 Hence, not only internal corporate records, such as ledgers and journal entries, but also records of corporate transactions with third parties, such as agreements with thirdparty vendors, are covered. The FCPA’ s recordkeeping provision also includes minutes of board of director meetings and board resolutions, but would not encompass every memorandum or note taken by an employee relating to any business matter.

Furthermore, transactions must be accurately recorded “in reasonable detail.” The FCPA defines “reasonable detail” to mean “such level of detail … as would satisfy prudent officials in the conduct of their own affairs.”164 This means that records should include any information tending to alert the SEC to any impropriety. For example, external and internal auditors should look for cash payments, payments to anonymous or numbered bank accounts, checks written to “bearer” or “cash” and misleading or fake documentation serving as a cover for fictitious sales, purchases, loans or other transactions.

All public companies that file Form 10-K reports must observe the accounting provisions regardless of whether they engage in foreign operations.165 Officers, directors, employees and stockholders or agents of a publicly traded firm are also subject to the accounting provisions. Individuals and non-publicly traded entities can be subject to the accounting provisions to the extent they are accomplices to statutory violations. The accounting provisions apply to various types of corporate activities, even wholly domestic activities and the manner in which those activities or transactions are reflected in corporate accounting records.166

A U.S. publicly traded firm (an “issuer”) must ensure that any majority-owned foreign subsidiary adheres to the accounting provisions. For example, in 2006, the SEC brought an action against Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.167 Allegedly, Schnitzer’ s wholly owned subsidiaries, SSI International Far East Ltd. and SSI International, Inc., made improper cash payments to managers of scrap metal customers owned, in whole or in part, by the Chinese government, to induce purchases of Schnitzer’ s scrap metal.168 “In order to conceal the improper payments, Schnitzer falsely described those payments to foreign officials as ‘sales commissions,’ ‘commissions to the customer,’ ‘refunds,’ or ‘rebates’ in Schnitzer’s books and records.”169 Schnitzer paid a $7.7 million civil penalty for violation of both the anti-bribery and accounting/internal control provisions of the FCPA.170

A parent issuer may also be held responsible in some cases of less than 50% ownership.171 When an issuer does not have an ownership interest greater than 50%, it must “proceed in good faith to use its influence, to the extent reasonable under the issuer’s circumstances, to cause [the affiliate] to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls” consistent with the accounting provisions.172 Good faith efforts should “include the relative degree of the issuer’s ownership of the domestic or foreign firm and the laws and practices governing the business operations of the country in which such firm is located.”173 Other relevant factors in assessing good faith include the extent to which the issuer has the opportunity to obtain access to books and records, and the extent to which the issuer can influence a subsidiary’s or other partner’s actions by other means.174 The SEC applies practical tests in its determination of whether an issuer controls a foreign subsidiary. An issuer’s duty to influence a foreign subsidiary’s behavior increases directly with the degree to which it can exercise control over the subsidiary.

2. Internal Controls

The FCPA itself does not define “internal accounting controls.” In general, internal controls are the various policies, procedures, and processes by which a business is managed effectively and efficiently. One federal appellate court defined “internal accounting controls” as the “mechanism by which companies monitor their accounting system (their individualized method of processing transactions) for errors and irregularities in order to safeguard company assets and ensure that records are sufficiently reliable.”175

The FCPA requires publicly traded firms to design and maintain a system of internal controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that:

(i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets; (Ui) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences ….176

The SEC does not mandate any specific internal controls. The SEC articulates broad goals that controls should achieve and leaves the implementation of specific policies and procedures to issuers. Several factors are considered in the determination of whether a system of internal controls is reasonable under the circumstances: (1) the role of the board of directors; (2) communication of corporate procedures; (3) assignment of authority and responsibility; (4) competence and integrity of personnel; (5) accountability for performance and compliance with policies and procedures; and (6) objectivity and effectiveness of the internal audit function.177 The failure to establish an audit committee may violate the FCPA. A public firm may also violate the law if it has no controls for a particular activity such as fund transfers outside the country or the making of political contributions.

3. Enforcement of Accounting and Internal Control Provisions

Both the SEC and DOJ have enforced the FCPA’s accounting and recordkeeping provisions, with the SEC often taking the lead. In addition, the accounting provisions have been used to support charges under the anti-bribery provisions. Prosecution under the anti-bribery provisions is more difficult because evidence is obtained in a foreign setting.178

In an anti-bribery case, one of the most difficult elements is tracing funds through offshore corporations and bank accounts, the beneficial ownership of which can be extremely costly to determine.179 The cooperation of authorities in foreign nations is vital. If law enforcement in a given country fails to cooperate then the U.S. government must prove the case here without subpoena and search powers where the bribe may have occurred.180

For a FCPA case involving the accounting provisions, no need exists to prove “corrupt intent,” whether a “foreign official” was involved or to demonstrate whether a promise, offer or payment was made to “obtain or retain business” or “secure an improper advantage.”181 The elements of an accounting violation are limited to whether the business record is covered by the accounting provisions, whether the conduct was willful, and whether the record was accurate in reasonable detail.182

For example, in July 2010, the SEC filed books and records, and internal controls charges against General Electric and two GE subsidiaries – Ionics, Inc. and Amersham PLC.183 The SEC alleged that the two subsidiaries made $3.6 million in illegal kickback payments to the Iraqi Health Ministry, that GE and the two subsidiaries failed to maintain adequate systems of internal controls to detect and prevent the payments and that the accounting for the transactions failed to properly record the nature of the payments.184 GE agreed to pay $23.4 million to settle the charges.185

In another case, the SEC entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with Tenaris S.A. concerning allegations that the steel pipe product manufacturer bribed Uzbekistan officials to supply oil and natural gas pipelines.186 In response to SEC findings, Tenaris reviewed its compliance practices.187 Generally, businesses can improve their internal controls through due diligence requirements related to the retention and payment of agents and FCPA training.

4. Vicarious Liability Under the Accounting and Internal Control Provisions

a. Criminal Liability

An individual or entity can be held vicariously liable for the conduct of a third party when the latter is acting for or on behalf of the individual. Even if a third party is not subject to the accounting and internal control provisions, an individual or entity may become subject to vicarious liability if that individual or entity directs, authorizes or ratifies prohibited conduct.188 The key determinant is whether the agent is acting within the scope of express, implied or apparent authority.189 Improper entries in an entity’s books and records often result when improper payments are made or funneled to a foreign official through a foreign agent.190 A parent firm probably confronts an accounting/internal controls violation despite that an improper accounting entry is made on the books of a remote subsidiary or affiliate.191 Also, an accounting/internal controls charge may be pressed against a parent based on the notion that had appropriate internal controls been enforced any improper payment would not have happened.192

For criminal liability to attach for the conduct of third parties, a publicly traded firm must possess knowledge that the third party has circumvented or intends to violate the accounting provisions. Deliberate ignorance or conscious disregard can satisfy the knowledge requirement.193 Conscious acquiescence to an authorized act or acts may amount to authorization of those acts.194 Knowledge may reside with one person not necessarily a senior officer,195 or may be the collective knowledge of various employees acting within the scope of employment. 196

Vicarious criminal liability can also emanate from an entity or individual being an accomplice under the aiding and abetting statute.197 Criminal liability based on aiding and abetting requires intent that an offense be committed plus conduct that aids or abets a violation.198 Also, a conspiracy (i.e., an agreement) of two or more entities and/or individuals to violate the accounting and/or internal control provisions may serve as the basis for a federal conspiracy offense.199 The statute requires the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.200 The overt act need not be unlawful, so long as it contributes to an unlawful end. A relatively minor act, such as a phone call, or a series of e-mails, can serve as an overt act. The overt act is attributable to all co-conspirators who are members at the time the act is committed or those who join later.201

Moreover, under the Pinkerton rule, a defendant may be vicariously liable for a substantive offense committed by another member of the conspiracy.202 A co-conspirator may be convicted of an offense (other than conspiracy) without knowledge of or participation in the offense.203 Pinkerton liability is not rare in white collar crime cases such as FCPA violations.

b. Civil Liability

A civil action under the accounting and internal control provisions does not require knowledge.204 An entity can be held strictly liable for the actions taken by an officer, director, employee, shareholder or agent acting on behalf of the issuer.205 When an issuer has an interest greater than 50%, strict liability applies.206 When an entity has less than a 50% interest, strict vicarious liability attaches when it is shown that the entity has not proceeded “in good faith to use its influence, to the extent reasonable under the . . . circumstances, to cause such domestic or foreign firm to devise and maintain a system of internal controls consistent” with those provisions.207

Another theory of vicarious liability used by the SEC is “control person” liability under §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.208 This legal approach requires that the plaintiff establish a primary FCPA violation by the controlled person entity, as well as control of the primary violator.209 Control of a primary violator may be shown by ownership of voting securities, contract, ability to influence management policies or otherwise.210 Once a prima facie violation of §20(a) is established the burden of proof shifts to the control person or entity to demonstrate actions taken in good faith.211

c. FCPA Penalties

Criminal and civil penalties can result from violation of the FCPA. A company that violates the anti-bribery provisions may be fined up to $2 million per offense and be subject to civil penalties of $100,000 per violation.212 An individual may be fined up to $100,000 per violation and imprisoned for five years for a willful violation and may be subject to civil penalties of $10,000 per violation.213 Alternatively, fines can be levied up to $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation, or twice the gross gain from unlawful activity, whichever is greater.214

A company that knowingly commits a violation of the accounting provisions may be fined up to $25 million and face civil penalties of up to $500,000.215 An individual may be fined $5 million, imprisoned for 20 years, and face up to $100,000 in civil penalties.216 Other penalties for accounting provision violations include SEC injunctive actions, civil penalty actions, equitable remedies, such as “disgorgement” of profits and administrative proceedings.

XII. FCPA COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS

The main reasons for a FCPA compliance program are to prevent violations prior to their occurrence, quickly detect any violations and mitigate the penalties in the event a violation occurs. The DOJ and SEC have indicated that the existence of a compliance program is a significant factor taken into account in deciding whether to bring charges, what charges to bring and what penalties to impose.217 The failure to establish a FCPA compliance program may be seen as evidence of a lack of internal controls that might in and of itself be a violation of the accounting provisions.218

U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines and several FCPA settlement agreements outline criteria by which a compliance program is evaluated by the SEC and DOJ.219 Although these criteria are not legally binding, they provide solid guidance on the contents of an effective FCPA compliance program. These criteria include:

* Clearly stated corporate policy against violations of the FCPA and establishment of compliance standards and procedures that are reasonably capable of diminishing the prospect of violations;

* Assignment of the responsibility for compliance oversight to appropriate senior corporate officials who report directly to the audit or compliance committee of the Board of Directors;

* Identification of high-risk countries or businesses and performance of periodic anti-bribery audits of operations in such countries;

* Regular FCPA training for officers and employees involved in foreign projects and for agents, consultants, and subcontractors;

* Adoption and implementation of accounting and internal controls to ensure compliance with the accounting and recordkeeping provisions of the FCPA;

* Establishment of a reporting system for officers, employees, agents, consultants, joint venture partners, and distributors to report suspected criminal conduct without fear of reprisal; and

* Adoption and implementation of procedures to ensure that the company’s agents, consultants, joint venture partners, and distributors are not likely to engage in improper activities.220

Conducting a due diligence investigation of agents, partners or consultants of a firm that could potentially violate the FCPA is one way to reduce the risk of FCPA violations. Company procedures should require that a due diligence process be undertaken before the firm enters into a relationship with a foreign agent, representative or business partner. FCPA due diligence concerning consultants, partners or agents should include requirements that the company:

* determine the competence, expertise, and reputation of the party, as well as the party’s contacts with important government decision-makers. The party’s experience, education, former governmental or military service, family and business relationships, and reputation for honesty are all important areas of inquiry;

*evaluate whether the proposed compensation to be paid in exchange for the services rendered or products delivered is reasonable. “Success fees” deserve special scrutiny;

* contact local counsel to ensure that they proposed arrangement will not violate local law . . . and, depending on the circumstances, FCPA counsel;

* insert standard representations and warranties concerning compliance with the FCPA;

* assure the maintenance of accurate books and records by the consultant, [agent] or partner;

* apply a common sense “smell” test to the proposed arrangement; and

* after [due] diligence is completed, prepare a file memorandum to record the [due] diligence steps taken.221

Different sources to help ascertain a consultant’s or agent’s reputation, expertise and relationships include auditing firms, law firms, the relevant U.S. Embassy, the Commerce Department, the State Department, financial institutions and possibly private investigations.222

Companies using foreign consultants, agents, or representatives should place protective covenants in consultancy, partnership or agency agreements, such as:

* The parties’ confirmation of an awareness of the terms of the FCPA;

* An agreement not to violate the FCPA;

* An agreement not to pay money or anything of value to foreign officials;

* A representation that the party is not an employer, officer, or agent of a foreign government or candidate for public office, and an agreement that the U.S. party will be advised if the partner or consultant assumes the position of a government official during the relationship;

* An agreement that the party will keep accurate books and records;

* A covenant that will allow the U.S. firm to review or audit all the books and records of the consultant or agent relating to its activities for the benefit of the U.S. firm; and

* An agreement that payments under any contract will be made only by check or wire transfer to an account in the name of the contracting party located in the host country.223

All compliance efforts should be documented carefully to permit the U.S. firm to prove later that it implemented a rigorous program in practice.

It is critical to have the appropriate “tone from the top” for FCPA compliance. The entity’s FCPA policies and procedures must be endorsed and sponsored by both senior and mid-level management. The latter are important because they actually conduct the firm’s daily business operations. Each entity should also conduct periodic reviews of its FCPA compliance program with a view toward remedial action so that any missteps are not repeated. Continuous monitoring for FCPA compliance should be linked to other anti-fraud efforts because a relationship exists between the way bribery is conducted and the types of schemes used for fraud.224

CONCLUSION

The FCPA now plays a pivotal role in addressing U.S. firms’ involvement in bribery of foreign public officials and requiring that publicly traded firms meet certain standards regarding internal controls and accounting practices, books and records. The SEC and DOJ have increased enforcement of the FCPA during the last few years to such an extent that many publicly traded firms have FCPA audits performed by internal and/or external auditors.

The anti-bribery provisions criminalize the payment or offer of payment either directly or indirectly, of money or anything of value to an official of a foreign government, public international organization, foreign political party or candidate for public office, made with corrupt intent to obtain or retain business or secure an improper advantage. The anti-bribery provisions are much broader than the accounting provisions.

All public companies that file Form 10-K reports must observe the accounting provisions regardless of whether they engage in foreign operations. Officers, directors, employees, and stockholders or agents of a public company, acting on the latter’ s behalf, are subject to the accounting provisions. The latter are aimed at prohibiting the establishment of off-the-books accounts, making of off-the-books transactions, recording of non-existent expenditures and the use of false documentation for concealing bribery activities.

The FCPA also requires publicly traded firms to design and maintain a system of internal controls. Although the SEC does not mandate any specific controls, it does articulate broad goals that controls should achieve while leaving the implementation of specific policies and procedures to issuers. FCPA provisions related to internal controls provide many ways for the SEC to initiate legal proceedings.

Serious criminal and civil sanctions can result from FCPA violations. During the last decade, numerous firms have paid fines and penalties totaling billions of dollars and individuals have been sentenced to prison. A firm’s cooperation is considered by the government in deciding whether to bring criminal charges and what penalties to seek.

FCPA compliance programs are a key means to demonstrate cooperation in the event of a violation. A firm’s board of directors and senior management should establish a compliance culture through preventative training and ongoing monitoring. Specific audits focused on the FCPA have become more common in many firms. Also, in an acquisition setting, it is possible for an acquirer to be held liable if a seller’s FCPA violations are not uncovered.

In sum, the FCPA and its enhanced enforcement represent an important step towards combating bribery in international business transactions and promoting more transparent financial reporting. Increased enforcement of the FCPA should result in a reduction of the level of corruption and fraud. Only then will the global marketplace become a level playing field that embraces the principles of fairness and transparency and promotes confidence in the arena in which international and securities transactions occur.

AuthorAffiliation

Carl Pacini’

AuthorAffiliation

* Associate Professor of Accounting, University of South Florida-St. Petersburg; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Accounting, Florida Atlantic University; J.D., University of Notre Dame, 1979; Ph.D., Florida State University, 1997. The author acknowledges the hard work and dedication of the editors and staff of the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law.

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law 2012

Indexing (details)

Cite

Subject

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977-US

;

International business

;

Bribery

;

Provisions

;

Compliance

;

Corporate governance

Location

United States–US

Classification

9190: United States

2110: Board of directors

4320: Legislation

Title

THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: TAKING A BITE OUT OF BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

Author

Pacini, Carl

Publication title

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Volume

Issue

Pages

545-589

Number of pages

Publication year

2012

Publication date

2012

Year

2012

Publisher

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Place of publication

New York

Country of publication

United States

Publication subject

Business And Economics–Banking And Finance

ISSN

1532303X

Source type

Scholarly Journals

Language of publication

English

Document type

Feature

Document feature

References

ProQuest document ID

1022996714

Document URL

https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1022996714?accountid=34899

Last updated

2012-07-24

Database

ProQuest Central

Tags

– this link will open in a new window
About tags|

Go to My Tags

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Be the first to add a shared tag to this document.

A tag is a non-hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as this record). This kind of metadata helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching.

Add tags

to My Research to add tags.

Top of Form

Add tags:

Share my tags with the ProQuest user community; requires a public profile. – this link will open in a new window

Add

Use a comma to separate multiple words or phrases. For example: stars, planet, solar system. Tags can contain letters and numbers only.

Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Your tags have been saved and will be available only to you.
Note: Please allow several hours processing time for newly added tags to be searchable.

Your tag(s) will now be available for others in the ProQuest user community to see on this document. In addition, your Public Profile will be accessible from your shared tags.
Note: Please allow several hours processing time for newly added tags to be searchable.

OK
Your tags have been saved and will be available only to you.
Note: Please allow several hours processing time for newly added tags to be searchable.

One or more of the tags you entered violates our acceptable use guidelines and will not be added to the document.
The following tags have been added:

Top of Form

Tags can contain letters and numbers only. Remove other characters from your tag in the box below and click Fix tag.

Fix tag(s):

Fix tag

Reference:

Pacini, C. (2012). THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: TAKING A BITE OUT OF BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 17(2), 545-589. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1022996714?accountid=34899

Bottom of Form

http://jom.sagepub.com/

Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/

199

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/014920630832155

2009 35: 199 originally published online 16 July 2008Journal of Management
Niccolò Pisani

Management Journals
International Management Research: Investigating its Recent Diffusion in Top

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/199.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

– Jul 16, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record

– Mar 26, 2009Version of Record >>

at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARGOSY UNIV LIBRARY on October 24, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/19

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://southernmanagement.org

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/199.refs.html

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/35/2/199.full

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/07/16/0149206308321552.full

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://jom.sagepub.com/

International Management Research:
Investigating Its Recent Diffusion

in Top Management Journals†

Niccolò Pisani*
IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson, 21, Barcelona, Spain 0803

The globalization of business and the related increase in amount and relevance of internation

research suggest the need to map the international management field. Building on reviews by
Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002), this study provides a comprehensive picture
of the field by examining the amount and type of international management research in 20 top
management journals from 2002 to 2006. An assessment of the pervasiveness of international
management topics is also offered through a detailed analysis of international management
publication patterns of 10 top management journals.

Keywords: international management review; top management journals; publication patterns

In today’s increasingly competitive global marketplace, international management (IM)
research can be considered a relevant source of knowledge for understanding business phe-
nomena. The globalization of business and the related increase in amount of published studies
concerned with the international aspects of management suggest the need to map the IM field.
As a result, in the last decade management journals have regularly published reviews of IM
research. These studies have mainly focused on the delimitation of IM (Boddewyn, 1999;
Martinez & Toyne, 2000), on where IM works get generally published (DuBois & Reeb, 2000;

†I am grateful to the Center for Globalization and Strategy at IESE Business School for its support on this research
project. I thank Africa Ariño, Miguel Ángel Canela, Matteo Prato, and Joan Enric Ricart for their helpful sugges-
tions on previous versions. I also thank Manuel Becerra and three anonymous reviewers for thoughtful and detailed
comments that improved the article. This article was accepted under the editorship of Russell Cropanzano.

*Corresponding author: Tel.: +34 93 253 4200; fax: +34 93 253 434

E-mail address: npisani@iese.edu

Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, April 2009 199-21

DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321552
© 2009 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

199

Inkpen, 2001; Werner & Brouthers, 2002), on the methodologies used (Yang, Wang, & Su,
2006), and on the IM topics selected (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; Inkpen & Beamish, 1994;
Ricks, Toyne, & Martinez, 1990; Roth & Kostova, 2003; Werner, 2002).

Although these published reviews have undeniably presented some interesting insights
for the community of IM scholars, two major limitations characterize this body of research.
First, most of these reviews failed to include a representative sample of management jour-
nals when searching for IM contributions (Inkpen, 2001). Most of the studies focused on a
restricted number of journals, frequently limiting their search to journals exclusively cover-
ing international matters (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000). As a conse-
quence, their biased results did not provide a real sense of the pervasiveness of IM
contributions in the mainstream management area. The few studies that used a rather com-
plete list of top management journals as a base for their IM reviews did not go further than
computing the total number of articles for each journal scrutinized (Werner, 2002; Werner &
Brouthers, 2002). Therefore, no published review has yet provided a thorough investigation
of the real prevalence of IM studies in top management journals.

The second limitation has to deal with the time spans selected. Most of the cited reviews
investigated articles published before 2000 (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000;
Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002). Only two IM reviews (Chan, Fung, & Leung, 2006;
Yang et al., 2006) included articles published after 2000. However, in both cases the authors
analyzed only IM works published in a restricted number of specialized international journals,
hence limiting the generalizability of their conclusions. Therefore, scholars interested in
becoming familiar with IM research, understanding its pervasiveness, and discovering the dif-
ferent journals’ publication patterns cannot rely on any of these works for updated information.

The purpose of this study is to tackle these two limitations, presenting an updated and
comprehensive review of the IM field. I divide the study into two main parts. In the first, I
offer an updated reassessment of IM research, examining the amount and type of IM research
published in 20 top management journals from 2002 to 2006. The methodology used to
select and categorize IM works is identical to the one used by Werner (2002) and Werner and
Brouthers (2002) in their reviews of IM research for the 1976-1980 and 1996-2000 periods.
The use of the same method allows a comparison of the results of the three studies that gives
an exhaustive overview of the evolution of IM research.

In the second part, I address the lack of studies that deal with top management journals’
publication patterns in relation to the IM field. I select 10 top management journals and thor-
oughly analyze their publication patterns relative to IM articles for the 2002-2006 period. I
devote special attention to the initial selection of the journals (Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005) because it has often represented a major weakness of previ-
ous IM reviews. Thus, this analysis contributes to the IM literature by uncovering the posi-
tioning of top management journals with respect to their exposure to IM research.

This article is accordingly structured. In the first section, I focus on the replication of the
studies made by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002). I illustrate the main
methodological issues, discussing the results and comparing them with the ones obtained in the
other two studies. In the second section, I identify 10 top management journals and compre-
hensively analyze their publication patterns relative to IM research and its distinctive cate-
gories. A discussion of the main contributions and limitations of the study concludes the article.

200 Journal of Management / April 2009

IM Research: An Updated Review

The objective of this section is to offer an updated review of IM, investigating the amount
and type of IM research published in 20 top management journals from 2002 to 2006. For
the analysis I used the same methodology used by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers
(2002) for the 1976-1980 and 1996-2000 periods. I opted for a replication of such studies for
three reasons. First, these reviews are generally regarded as well-crafted summaries of the
different streams of IM research for the time periods selected (Ricart, Enright, Ghemawat,
Hart, & Khanna, 2004; Roth & Kostova, 2003). Second, they use a fairly complete list of top
management journals as a basis of their review (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992; Judge, Cable,
Colbert, & Rynes, 2007). Third, the replication allows me to compare the results of the three
studies, providing a comprehensive perspective of the evolution of IM research. As I repli-
cate previous works, I refer to them every time I use concepts and assumptions formulated
by the other two authors in the development of their research.

IM Research Boundaries

IM research can be divided into three categories: pure IM research, comparative man-
agement studies, and foreign domestic studies (Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002).
First, pure IM research includes articles that look at the management of firms in a multina-
tional context. It consists of studies that focus on the international aspects of management
that do not apply to domestic enterprises (Ricks, 1991). Second, comparative management
studies evaluate the management practices of different cultures (cross-cultural studies) and
of different nations (cross-national studies) (Ricks, 1985; Ricks et al., 1990). Finally, foreign
domestic studies look at management practices in a specific country outside the United
States (Ricks, 1985).

Following Werner (2002), I focused only on studies that belong to the pure IM research
category. Foreign domestic studies and comparative management studies are not included
because their main focus is, respectively, to investigate and compare local aspects of man-
agement in different countries and not to explore the international dimensions of manage-
ment. For a matter of convenience in the further development of the article I skip the term
pure every time I recall the pure IM research category and its related studies.

IM Research Categories

I used

categories to organize and group works pertaining to IM research (Werner,
2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002). The list is quite comprehensive because it covers all the
main aspects of the international aspects of management. Although it should not be consid-
ered a definitive classification of IM research, it can be regarded as a well-organized frame-
work to classify articles in this field (Werner, 2002). The encompassing review offered by
Werner (2002) for the 1996-2000 period using this categorization can be considered as proof
of its usefulness. Table 1 reports the categories and the main topics included (see Werner,
2002, for a more detailed description of the categories).

Pisani / International Management Research 201

Top Management Journals

The selection of the journals used as sources of IM articles is a critical moment in the
review process. The vast majority of reviews of IM research failed to include a representa-
tive sample of management journals in the search for IM contributions. For instance, many
reviews only used journals with an IM emphasis, thus greatly reducing their articles’ impacts
(Acedo & Casillas, 2005; Chan et al., 2006; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Yang et al., 2006).
Although this limitation has already attracted the attention of other IM scholars (Inkpen,
2001), no published review has really tackled this issue.

For this first part of the study I used the same list adopted by Werner (2002) and Werner
and Brouthers (2002). In processing their review, they used one of the most established lists
of top management journals, which dates back to the investigation of Gomez-Mejia and
Balkin (1992). Table 2 reports the entire list of 20 journals used in their study. It coincides
with the full list obtained by Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992), with the only difference that
it excludes the Harvard Business Review for its lack of focus on academic research.

Although it is not recent, Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list of 21 top management jour-
nals remains one of the most comprehensive. Judge et al. (2007) used it as a basis for their recent

202 Journal of Management / April 2009

Table

Categories of International Management Research

Category Topics Included

1. Global business environment Global economy, global markets, political and regulatory environments,
and international risk

2. Internationalization Description and measurement of internationalization, antecedents and
consequences of internationalization

3. Entry mode decisions Predictors of entry mode choices, predictors of international equity
ownership levels, and consequences of entry mode decisions

4. International joint ventures International joint venture partner selection, IJV partner relations, and
consequences of IJV

5. Foreign direct investment The timing of FDI, motivations of FDI, location of FDI, and firm and
host country consequences of FDI

6. International exchange International exchange, determinants of exporting, export intermediaries,
and consequences of exporting

7. Transfer of knowledge Antecedents of knowledge transfer, processes of knowledge transfer,
and consequences of knowledge transfer

8. Strategic alliances and networks Strategic alliance relationships, networks of strategic alliances, and
outcomes of strategic alliances

9. Multinational enterprises Multinational enterprise strategies and policies, and models and
descriptives of the multinational enterprise

10. Subsidiary–headquarters relations Subsidiary role (including subsidiary strategies and typologies),
subsidiary control, and subsidiary performance

11. Subsidiary and multinational Subsidiary HRM practices, subsidiary behaviors, multinational
team management negotiations, and multinational team management
12. Expatriate management Expatriate human resource management, issues for expatriates,

and expatriate and repatriate reactions

Source: Werner (2002).
Note: IJV = international joint ventures; FDI = foreign direct investment; HRM = human resource management.

study on what causes a management article to be cited. Furthermore, Podsakoff et al. (2005)
recently corroborated in their work that the list includes most of the top influential management
journals of the last 2 decades. In the second part of the study, when selecting 10 top manage-
ment journals for a detailed analysis of their IM publication patterns, I further discuss this issue
and argue why the Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list, although still valid, needs to revised.

The Review Process

The 20 selected top management journals published a total of 4,900 articles (book
reviews and editorials were not included) between January 2002 and December 2006. To
reduce the number of articles to be reviewed in order to search for IM articles, as done by
Acedo and Casillas (2005), I performed a keyword search using the Institute for Scientific
Information’s (ISI) Web of Knowledge database. I identified the articles that referred to con-
cepts related to IM (international, multinational, global, foreign, etc.) in the title, in the
abstract, or in the keywords. The result gave a total of 596 articles, which I collected to cre-
ate a database. Then, after reading the abstracts of the studies, I categorized the 596 articles
by deciding whether they belonged to the IM field and, if they did, in which IM category
they best fit. I found that 336 articles belonged to IM research and thus I grouped them using
the 12 categories (the complete list of references sorted by the corresponding publishing
journal is available on request). The categorization process was not always straightforward,

Pisani / International Management Research 203

Table 2
Top 20 Management Journals

Academic Journals

Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
Decision Sciences

Human Relations

Industrial & Labor Relations Review
Industrial Relations
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of International Business Studies
Journal of Management
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Occupational Psychology
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Journal of Vocational Behavior

Management Science

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Personnel Psychology
Psychological Bulletin
Strategic Management Journal

Sources: Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992) and Werner (2002).

because some of the articles potentially fell into more than one category (Werner, 2002). To
categorize these dubious articles I read the entire study and made a judgment call. Although
the final categorization for such articles remains debatable, the fact that there were only 19
uncertain cases limited their influence on the results.

The methodology used for the review can be susceptible to a major criticism concerning
the subjectiveness of the analysis. Reviews have generally been carried out using either an
objective quantitative analysis based on bibliographic measurements or, as in this case, a
subjective qualitative analysis based on the researcher’s interpretation. Each approach has
advantages and disadvantages (Acedo & Casillas, 2005). The main limitation of qualitative
analysis deals with the potential individual bias of the reviewer that can influence the cate-
gorization process. At the same time, the subjectiveness of the process can also be inter-
preted as providing a superior level of thoroughness in the analysis of the individual articles
that cannot be guaranteed when bibliographic measurements are used as the bases of the
review. To limit the potential bias of a unique assessment of the studies, a second scholar
reviewed and categorized, using the same classification (Werner, 2002), a random sample of
54 articles out of the 336 identified as IM works. In 85.2% of the cases, her categorization
coincided with mine. Given the high level of consistency obtained, I deemed it safe to pro-
ceed with my original categorization.

Results

Table 3 reports the number and respective percentage of the articles within each category
and compares them with the results obtained by Werner (2002) for 1996-2000.

204 Journal of Management / April 2009

Table 3
Number and Percentage of International Management Articles per Category

1996-2000 Review
2002-2006 Review (Werner, 2002)

Category No. % No. %

1. Global business environment 31 9.2 23 8.

2. Internationalization 48 14.3 34 12.5
3. Entry mode decisions 20 6.0 33 12.2
4. International joint ventures 32 9.5 25 9.2
5. Foreign direct investment 35 10.4 37 13.

6. International exchange 8 2.4 15 5.5
7. Transfer of knowledge 34 10.1 16 5.9
8. Strategic alliances and networks 17 5.1 18 6.

9. Multinational enterprises 42 12.5 16 5.9

10. Subsidiary–headquarters relations 19 5.7 18 6.6
11. Subsidiary and multinational team management 33 9.8 20 7.4
12. Expatriate management 17 5.1 16 5.9
Total 336 100 271 100

Chi-square test of independence χ2(11) = 24.54*, p = .01

*p < .05

The chi-square test of independence (χ2 = 24.54, p = .01) showed that the distribution of
IM articles across categories significantly changed from one time period to the other.
Although for most of the categories the changes over time were minimal, for a few ones the
variation was important. Foreign direct investment and internationalization represent two of
the three leading categories for both periods. In contrast, multinational enterprises grew from
16 (5.9%) to 42 (12.5%) articles and knowledge transfer moved from 16 (5.9%) to 34
(10.1%). International exchange evolved in the opposite direction, from 15 (5.5%) articles to
8 (2.4%), and so did entry mode decisions, which moved from 33 (12.2%) to 20 (6.0%).

For a comparison that also includes the 1976-1980 period, I categorized data according
to the publishing journal. For each period, I also calculated the percentage of IM articles
published by every journal. This ratio provides a straightforward estimate of how focused on
IM matters a journal is and whether its IM exposure has increased or decreased over time.
Table 4 reports the results for each of the 20 journals and compares the results with the find-
ings obtained by Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002).

Pisani / International Management Research 205

Table 4
Number and Percentage of International Management (IM) Articles per Journal

1996-2000 Review 1976-1980 Review
2002-2006 Review (Werner, 2002) (Werner & Brouthers, 2002)

Total Total IM Total Total IM Total Total IM
Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles

Academic Journals 2002-2006 2002-2006 % 1996-2000 1996-2000 % 1976-1980 1976-1980 %

Journal of International Business Studies 207 147 71.0 199 128 64.3 124 55 a 44.4
Strategic Management Journal 343 57 16.6 337 53 15.7 24 3 12.5
Journal of Management Studies 321 37 11.5 192 19 9.9 107 6 5.6
Academy of Management Journal 296 23 7.8 291 24 8.2 289 3 1.0
Academy of Management Review 175 14 8.0 203 6 3.0 322 4 1.2
Management Science 617 11 1.8 629 6 1.0 717 3 0.4
Journal of Management 204 11 5.4 184 5 2.7 45 0 0.0
Human Relations 282 10 3.5 302 4 1.3 340 4 1.2
Journal of Applied Psychology 500 6 1.2 397 3 0.8 533 0 0.0
Journal of Organizational Behavior 253 4 1.6 270 5 1.9 21 0 0.0
Administrative Science Quarterly 87 3 3.4 129 2 1.6 161 1 0.6
Industrial & Labor Relations Review 153 3 2.0 163 6 3.7 181 1 0.6
Industrial Relations 154 3 1.9 145 2 1.4 200 0 0.0
Decision Sciences 128 2 1.6 199 5 2.5 293 0 0.0
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 145 2 1.4 158 1 0.6 167 0 0.0
Personnel Psychology 131 2 1.5 151 2 1.3 205 0 0.0
Journal of Vocational Behavior 287 1 0.3 244 0 0.0 322 0 0.0
Journal of Occupational Psychology 159 0 0.0 143 0 0.0 142 0 0.0
Organizational Behavior and 231 0 0.0 342 0 0.0 274 0 0.0

Human Decision Processes
Psychological Bulletin 227 0 0.0 206 0 0.0 459 0 0.0
Total 4900 336 6.9 4,884 271 5.5 4926 80 1.6

Chi-square test of independenceb χ2(14) = 31.58**, p = .005

a. Not reported by Werner and Brouthers (2002); obtained reviewing the 124 articles.
b. The chi-square test is restricted to the entries of the first eight journals listed in the table relative to the three periods.
**p < .01

206 Journal of Management / April 2009

A chi-square test of independence (χ2 = 31.58, p = .005) restricted to the eight journals
that published most of IM research in the 2002-2006 period (in Table 4 they correspond to
the first eight journals listed) confirmed that a significant change occurred over time. The
clearest changes occurred with respect to the end of the 1970s. Indeed, a chi-square test of
independence restricted to the entries of the eight journals relative to the two more recent
periods (χ2 = 9.27, p = .23) showed that no significant change took place in the last decade.
Figure 1 illustrates the main trends relative to the eight journals selected.

The three studies confirm the predominance of the Journal of International Business
Studies as the main publisher of IM research. The difference between the percentage of IM
publications in this journal and of all the others remained enormous over time. The Strategic
Management Journal and the Journal of Management Studies also maintained their position
in the rankings, being respectively the second and third most focused IM publishers.
Looking at the concentration of IM research, it is interesting to verify that these eight jour-
nals maintained their role of top IM publishers from the late 1970s until 2006. The findings
show that these eight outlets published 97.5% of all IM research that appeared in the 20

IM Publications over Time

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Human Relations
Journal of Management
Management Science

Academy of Management
Review

Academy of Management
Journal

Journal of Management
Studies

Strategic Management
Journal

Journal of International
Business Studies

2002-2006 1996-2000 1976-1980

Figure 1
International Management Publications Over Time

selected top management journals from 1976 to 1980, 90.4% of all the IM research that
appeared from 1996 to 2000; and 92.3% of all the IM research from 2002 to 2006. Therefore,
the remaining 12 top management journals were responsible for about 10% of all IM publi-
cations per period, thus maintaining a marginal role in the evolution of IM research.

Comparing the results between the two more recent periods shows that IM research
steadily increased its presence in the management area. The results show that whereas 5.5%
of all the articles published from 1996 to 2000 in the 20 journals were focused on IM matters
(Werner, 2002), this percentage increased to 6.9% for the 2002-2006 period. A chi-square
test of comparison of the two proportions (χ2 = 7.20, p = .01) confirmed that this increase
represents a significant step in the internationalization of the 20 journals selected. Looking
at the individual journals, we find that the Academy of Management Review substantially
augmented its exposure to IM research. In contrast, the Academy of Management Journal
even decreased its percentage of IM articles, being the only journal to reduce its relative cov-
erage of IM articles.

In sum, this updated review confirms the increasing IM presence in top management
journals. Although in the 1976-1980 period only 1.6% of the articles published in the 20
journals belonged to IM research, almost 7% of articles published in 2002-2006 could be
attributed to IM research. The distribution of IM research across categories and journals did
not dramatically change. There was a high concentration of IM articles in a few top man-
agement journals, with the Journal of International Business Studies being the leading IM
publisher. Although the degree of concentration remains a relative concept, the fact that of
20 journals considered, the 4 most active IM publishers (i.e., the top 20%) were responsible
for about 80% of all IM publications in the sample makes it reasonable to delineate a high
concentration of IM articles in a few top management outlets. With respect to the topics
selected, there were significant variations in the relative weights of some of the categories in
2002-2006. Issues relative to the models of the multinational enterprise and to their ability
to transfer knowledge have recently been the object of an increasing number of studies.

Top Management Journals and Their IM Publication Patterns

The main goal of this section is to further our understanding of the pervasiveness of IM
research in top management journals, thus investigating their IM publication patterns. No pub-
lished review of IM research has yet carefully examined this relevant topic. Although many
reviews have simply ignored the issue over the years (Chan et al., 2006; Martinez & Toyne,
2000; Ricks et al., 1990; Roth & Kostova, 2003), the ones that marginally addressed it either
failed to include a reasonable sample of top management journals as a base of their work or
did not provide a detailed analysis (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Inkpen &
Beamish, 1994; Lu, 2003; Morrison & Inkpen, 1991; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers,
2002). Most of the IM reviews restricted their attention to IM publications appearing in jour-
nals exclusively focused on international matters. The most widely used IM journals
employed in such reviews were the Journal of International Business Studies, Management
International Review, International Business Review, and the Journal of World Business
(Acedo & Casillas, 2005; Chan et al., 2006; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Inkpen & Beamish,
1994). An examination of the 2006 ranking of top management journals based on their

Pisani / International Management Research 207

impact factor obtained from the ISI’s Web of Knowledge database showed that among these
IM-focused journals, only the Journal of International Business Studies appeared in the list
of the top 20. It is true that Management International Review is not yet tracked by ISI and
International Business Review has only recently joined its rankings; however, it seems rea-
sonable to assume that neither of them would likely be included in the list of the current 20
leading journals in the realm of management. Therefore, although the reviews exclusively cov-
ering such IM-focused journals certainly provided a thorough analysis of their IM publica-
tions (DuBois & Reeb, 2000), they failed to indicate the pervasiveness of IM research in the
mainstream management area (Inkpen, 2001).

The only two reviews that used a fairly representative list of top management journals as
a base for their search of IM contributions are the ones of Werner (2002) and Werner and
Brouthers (2002), on which I based the updated review reported in the previous section. Yet,
because of two major limitations, these studies were unable to provide a thorough analysis
of top management journals’ IM publication patterns. First, the list of 20 top management
journals used (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992), although still valid, omits a few very influen-
tial management outlets. Second, Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002) did not
specifically examine the IM publication patterns of the selected journals. These articles pro-
vide nothing beyond what was reported in the previous section in terms of understanding
how top management journals position themselves with respect to IM research topics.

This section aims thus at addressing such limitations, providing the reader with a practi-
cal map of top management journals’ IM publication patterns. The analysis is particularly
useful for IM scholars interested in determining whether particular journals favor specific
research categories within the IM field and, if they do, on which ones they focus. Building
on the results of the updated review of the previous section, this work aims at contributing
to the IM literature by investigating the positioning of leading management journals with
respect to their current exposure to IM research topics.

Top Management Journals

The selection of the journals on which to base the search for IM articles is a critical but
underestimated moment in the review process. As already discussed in the previous section,
Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002) employed one of the most commonly used
lists of top management journals (Judge et al., 2007; Van Fleet, McWilliams, & Siegel, 200

developed by Gomez-Mejia and Balkin in 1992. The recent work of Podsakoff et al. (2005),
who investigated the influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s, corroborates
the overall validity of this list. Of the 21 management journals identified by Gomez-Mejia
and Balkin (1992), 19 were among the list of 20 top journals ranked according to the aver-
age citations per article published (Podsakoff et al., 2005). This measure, also called impact
factor, is frequently used as a proxy to determine the relative influence of journals in their
corresponding fields (DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Judge et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2005).

Therefore, should the Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list be revised? Although it is
still valid, a minor revision of the list would greatly improve its representativeness of top
management journals. Using ISI’s Web of Knowledge database, I obtained the 2006 ranking

208 Journal of Management / April 2009

of management journals based on their impact factor. When I compared the results obtained
by Podsakoff et al. (2005), the ranking provided by ISI Web of Knowledge, and Gomez-
Mejia and Balkin’s list, two major issues arose. First, the Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science should not be considered a top management journal, because it appears only in
Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s list. Second, Organization Science and Organization Studies
should be included in the list of 20 top management journals because they currently have 2
of the 20 highest impact factors in the management field.

Consequently, I selected the following 10 journals to perform a detailed analysis of their
IM publication patterns: Journal of International Business Studies, Strategic Management
Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Review, Management Science, Journal of Management, Human Relations,
Organization Science, and Organization Studies. The first eight journals belong to the orig-
inal list of Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992), and the results from the previous section con-
firmed them to be the leading publishers of IM research. I added Organization Science and
Organization Studies to improve the comprehensiveness of the list.

Finally, for the first part of the analysis, I also included the Management International
Review, an IM-focused journal widely acknowledged as being the second most influential
outlet in the realm of IM after the Journal of International Business Studies (DuBois &
Reeb, 2000). Although this journal is not tracked by ISI, its inclusion here is very useful
because it offers a relevant reference point for interpreting the results corresponding to the
Journal of International Business Studies, which would otherwise be the only IM-focused
journal in the sample.

The Review Process

To search for and categorize IM articles, I used the same methodology used in the previ-
ous section to update Werner’s (2002) review. In other words, I collected all the articles
(book reviews and editorials were not included) published in the selected journals from
January 2002 to December 2006. I performed the same keyword search to reduce the number
of potential IM articles to be reviewed and I grouped the articles using the same categoriza-
tion. For the eight journals included in Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list, I used the
results reported in the previous section. For the two newly included journals tracked by ISI,
Organization Science and Organization Studies, I proceeded to analyze the 86 articles iden-
tified through the keyword search. Thirty-four articles belonged to IM research and were
thus grouped using the 12 categories. In three cases I read the entire studies before deciding
on their categorization because they potentially fell into more than one category. With
respect to the Management International Review, I analyzed the 183 articles published in
2002-2006 and categorized the 139 articles that belonged to IM research.

Results

The main results of the categorization process relative to the three additional journals con-
sidered are the following. Management International Review published a total of 183 articles

Pisani / International Management Research 209

in 2002-2006, of which 139 (76%) belonged to IM research. In the same period,
Organization Science published 228 articles with 20 (8.8%) belonging to IM research,
whereas Organization Studies published 297 articles with 14 (4.7%) being IM studies. These
initial findings immediately confirm the relevance of including Organization Science and
Organization Studies in the sample of top management journals. With their respective 20 and
14 IM articles, they were among the leading publishers of IM research in 2002-2006. In
addition, for the 2002-2006 period these two outlets together published more IM articles (34)
than the 12 top management journals included in the original list of Gomez-Mejia and Balkin
(1992) and excluded for the analysis in this section (26). This result corroborates, on one
side, the high degree of concentration of IM articles in few top management journals and, on
the other, the soundness of the sample of journals selected.

In relation to the results corresponding to the Management International Review and their
comparison with the results obtained for the Journal of International Business Studies, the
fact that both of them published more than 70% of their articles on IM matters confirms their
clear focus on the investigation of international dimensions of management.

Using the 310 IM articles corresponding to the eight journals already considered in the
previous section and the 173 IM articles obtained from the examination of the three addi-
tional outlets included, I investigated the type of IM research that each journal tended to pub-
lish more often. In other words, I examined how many IM articles belonging to a specific
category were published by each journal. Table 5 reports the number and respective per-
centage of IM articles in each of these journals by categories for 2002-2006.

An interesting finding is that the two IM-focused journals showed a very homogeneous dis-
tribution of IM articles across categories with only a few marked differences. Both outlets pub-
lished practically the same number of IM research articles in 8 of the 12 categories. However,
the Journal of International Business Studies concentrated much more on the entry mode deci-
sion and the foreign direct investment, whereas the Management International Review focused
more on the transfer of knowledge and the multinational enterprises categories.

Another interesting result is that the four journals that published the most IM research
tended to publish articles from almost all the categories, thus practically covering the entire
range of topics. In the case of the Journal of International Business Studies, the Management
International Review, the Strategic Management Journal, and the Journal of Management
Studies, none of the categories weighted more than 20%. Nonetheless, as already discussed
for the two IM-focused outlets, these journals differed in their publishing patterns regarding
the content of IM research. For instance, both the Journal of International Business Studies
and the Strategic Management Journal devoted most of their attention to internationalization
(respectively, 14.3% and 19.3%), foreign direct investment (13.6% and 15.8%), and multi-
national enterprises (15.0% and 15.8%). However, only the Strategic Management Journal
also focused on strategic alliances and networks (2.7% and 8.8%) and subsidiary–headquar-
ters relations (5.4% and 10.5%). Beyond internationalization (18.9%) and multinational
enterprises (13.5%), the Journal of Management Studies also devoted major attention to
entry mode decisions (13.5%) and subsidiary and multinational team management (13.5%).

The other seven journals specialize in a limited number of categories within IM and thus
tend to become a reference point for a few specific IM research substreams. For instance,
roughly half of the IM articles published in the Academy of Management Journal belonged

210 Journal of Management / April 2009

T
ab

le
5

N
u

m
b

er
(

%
)

of
I

n
te

rn
at

io
n

al
M

an
ag

em
en

t
A

rt
ic

le
s

p
er

C
at

eg
or

y
an

d
p

er
J

ou
rn

11
.

S
ub

si
di

ar
y

1.
G

lo
ba

l
2.

I
nt

er
3.

E
nt

ry
4

. I
nt

er
na

io
na

l
5.

F
or

ei
gn

I
nt

er
–

7.
T

ra
ns

fe
r

8.
S

tr
at

eg
ic

M
ul

ti-

. S
ub

si
di

ar
y–

an
d

m
ul

tin
at

io
na

l
bu

si
ne

na
tio

na
li-

m
od

e
jo

in
t

di
re

ct
na

tio
na

l
of

al
lia

nc
es

a
nd

tio
na

l
he

ad
qu

ar
te

te
am

. E

xp
at

ri
at

e
Jo

ur
na

ls
en

vi
ro

nm
en

t
za

tio
n

de
ci

si
on

ve
nt

ur
es

in
ve

t
m

en
t

ex
ch

an
ge

kn
ow

le
dg

e
ne

tw
or

ks
en

te
rp

ri
se

s
re

la
tio

ns
m

an
ag
em
en
t
m
an
ag
em
en

t
To

ta
l

Jo
ur

na
l o

f I
nt

er
na

ti
on

al
15

(
10

.2
)

21
(

14
.3

)
10

(
6.

8)
18

(
12

.2
)

20
(

13
.6

)
5

(3
.4

)
12

(
8.

)
4

(2
.7

)
22

(
15

.0
)

8
(5

.4
)

9
(6

.1
)

3
(2

.0
)

14
7

(1
00

)
B

us
in

es
s

St
ud

ie
s

M
an

ag
em

en
t I

nt
er

na
ti
on

al
13

(
9.

4)
19

(
13

.7
)

3
(2
.2
)

14
(

10
.1

)
8

(5
.8

)
4

(2
.9

)
26

(
18

.7
)

4
(2

.9
)

29
(

20
.9

)
7

(5
.0

)
9

(6
.5

)
3

(2
.2

)
13

9
(1

00
)

R
ev

ie
w

St
ra

te
gi

c
M

an
ag
em
en

t J
ou

rn
al

1
(1

.8
)

11
(

19
.3

)
3

(5
.3

)
5

(8
.8

)
9

(1
5.

)
1

(1
.8

)
7

(1
2.

3)
5

(8
.8
)
9
(1
5.

)
6

(1
0.

)
0

(0
.0

)
0
(0
.0

)
57

(
10
0)
Jo
ur
na
l o

M
an

ag
em

en
t S

tu
di

es
2

(5
.4

)
7

(1
8.

9)
5

(1
3.

5)
4

(1
0.

)
2

(5
.4
)
1
(2
.7
)
4
(1
0.

8)
1

(2
.7
)
5
(1
3.

5)
1

(2
.7
)
5
(1
3.

5)
0

(0
.0

)
37

(
10
0)

A
ca

de
m

y
of

M
an
ag
em

en
t J

ou
rn

al
1

(4
.3

)
6

(2
6.

1)
0

(0
.0
)
2

(8
.7

)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(4
.3
)
1
(4
.3
)
1
(4
.3
)
2
(8
.7
)
4

(1
7.

4)
5

(2
1.

7)
23

(
10
0)

O
rg

an
iz

at
io

n
Sc

ie
nc

e
1

(5
.0
)
2
(1
0.

0)
3

(1
5.

0)
1

(5
.0
)
2
(1
0.

0)
0

(0
.0
)
6

(3
0.

0)
2

(1
0.
0)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
3
(1
5.
0)
0
(0
.0

)
20

(
10
0)
O
rg
an
iz
at
io

n
St

ud
ie

s
3

(2
1.

4)
1

(7
.1

)
2

(1
4.

3)
1

(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
4

(2
8.

6)
2

(1
4.

3)
14

(
10
0)
A
ca
de
m
y
of
M
an
ag
em

en
t R

ev
ie

w
4

(2
8.

6)
1

(7
.1
)
1
(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
3
(2
1.
4)
1
(7
.1
)
0
(0
.0
)
2
(1
4.
3)
14
(
10
0)
M
an
ag
em
en
t S

ci
en

ce
2

(1
8.

2)
0

(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
2
(1
8.
2)
0
(0
.0
)
7

(6
3.

6)
0

(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0

)
11

(
10
0)
Jo
ur
na
l o

f M
an

ag
em
en
t

0
(0

.0
)

2
(1

8.
2)

1
(9

.1
)
2
(1
8.
2)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
2
(1
8.
2)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
3
(2

7.
3)

1
(9
.1
)
11
(

10
0)

H
um

an
R

el
at

io
ns

1
(1

0.
0)

0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(1
0.
0)
0
(0
.0
)
0
(0
.0
)
1
(1
0.
0)

2
(2

0.
0)
1
(1
0.
0)
1
(1
0.
0)

3
(3

0.
0)
0
(0
.0
)

10
(

10
0)

212 Journal of Management / April 2009

to either the internationalization or the expatriate management categories. In the Academy of
Management Review, half of the IM articles published dealt with either the global business
environment or the multinational enterprises. Management Science manifestly focused on
knowledge transfer, publishing more than 60% of its IM articles only on this topic.
Organization Science also had a clear focus on knowledge issues, publishing roughly one
third of its IM articles on this subject. Organization Studies published half of its IM articles
on the global business environments and the subsidiary and multinational team management.
Finally, the Journal of Management and Human Relations also concentrated mainly on two
categories, publishing about 50% of their IM articles on the subsidiary and multinational
team management and on the strategic alliances and networks. It is also worth of note that
the Journal of Management was the only journal that published roughly 20% of its IM arti-
cles on international joint ventures.

To further our understanding on the different IM publication patterns of top management
journals, I considered the 10 top journals tracked by ISI, thus excluding from the previous
list the Management International Review, and classified each of their IM articles per jour-
nal, category, and year of publication. Therefore, I created a variable Xcjt, which corresponds
to the number of IM articles belonging to category c, published by journal j at time t; c
ranges from 1 to 12 and corresponds to the categorization used until now; j ranges from 1 to
10 and corresponds to the list of 10 journals selected; and t ranges from 2002 to 2006. Using
this variable I investigated how journals modify their relative IM exposure over time and
their role in the evolution of the relative weights of the 12 categories. By tracking yearly vari-
ations in the publication rates of journals, this analysis is particularly sensitive to the pres-
ence of IM-oriented special issues in a given year. Although it is true that the publication of
a special issue can possibly skew the results for the corresponding year, the decision of a
journal to devote more attention to a particular IM topic remains worthy of note because it
represents an important element of its IM publication pattern. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the
main trends characterizing IM publications in 2002-2006.

The Journal of International Business Studies regularly published slightly more than 40%
of all the IM articles published yearly. Although its weight was fairly constant over the years
studied, the weights of the other two main IM publishers underwent more variation. The
Strategic Management Journal moved from publishing almost 30% of all IM articles in

2002

to publishing only about 10% of IM research in 2006. Similarly, the Journal of Management
Studies moved from 3% in 2002 and 2004 to 19% in 2005.

In contrast, the six journals that published less IM research saw their accumulated weights
steadily increase over the years studied, with the only exception of 2005. In particular, the
relative IM exposure of the Academy of Management Review and Management Science expe-
rienced the most stable growth during the time period studied. In sum, although more than
65% of the IM articles regularly appeared in only three journals, Figure 2 illustrates a pat-
tern in which journals that were characterized by a restricted and more specific IM exposure
steadily increased their relative weights in the publication of IM articles. Although 5 years
are not enough to make stronger judgments, the increasing yearly attention to IM matters
demonstrated by these journals could be interpreted as a sign of their greater awareness of
the importance of IM research.

Pisani / International Management Research 213

Figure 2
Relative Weights of Journals in 2002-2006

Journals’ Relative Weights in the Past Five Years

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1. Journal of International Business Studies
3. Journal of Management Studies
5. Organization Science
7. Academy of Management Review
9. Journal of Management

2. Strategic Management Journal
4. Academy of Management Journal
6. Organization Studies
8. Management Science
10. Human Relations

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
8

Figure 3
Relative Weights of International Management Categories in 2002-2006

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

1. Global business environment
3. Entry mode decisions
5. Foreign direct investment
7. Transfer of knowledge
9. Multinational enterprises
11. Subsidiary and multinational team management

2. Internationalization
4. International joint ventures
6. International exchange
8. Strategic alliances and networks
10. Subsidiary – HQ relations
12. Expatriate management

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6

6 7

7
7
7
7
9
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12

Figure 3 highlights some interesting patterns in relation to the 12 categories used to orga-
nize IM research. Although some of the categories maintained constant relative weights over
the years studied, others reduced their comparative presence. For instance, internationalization
and foreign direct investment were constantly chosen as main topics in roughly 25% of all IM
research studies published yearly. International exchange and entry mode decisions decreased
their relative presence, corroborating the trend observed in Table 3 when comparing the 1996-
2000 and 2002-2006 periods. In contrast, four categories experienced a noteworthy increase in
their relative weights in 2002-2006. The global business environment, the subsidiary and multi-
national team management, and, in a more irregular manner, the transfer of knowledge and the
multinational enterprises categories increased in relative importance.

The global business environment category has gained centrality as a consequence of the
increasing internationalization of economic activities. IM scholars have progressively focused
their attention on emerging economies and their peculiar institutional environments (Henisz
& Zelner, 2005; Meyer & Peng, 2005; Vaaler, Schrage, & Block, 2005). Environmental
matters have also gained prominence as a result of increased awareness of this topic (Child &
Tsai, 2005; Christmann, 2004; Christmann & Taylor, 2006). Moreover, issues concerned with
corporate governance and its evolution in a more globalized and interconnected world have
been the focus of an increasing number of studies (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Drori,
Yang, & Meyer, 2006; Khanna & Palepu, 2004; Weitzel & Berns, 2006). The Journal of
International Business Studies and the Academy of Management Review have published the
most IM articles dealing with these subjects recently.

The increases in the other three categories possibly document how management scholars
are adapting their IM research to the maturation of the knowledge-based economy and the
deepening integration of international economic activities that occurred in the last decade
(Dunning, 2000). Wealth-creating activities have become much more knowledge intensive
than before, and recent technological progress has given companies the opportunity to grow
on a global scale (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001). Such changes have radically altered
the way multinational enterprises compete in global markets: Whereas 20 years ago the com-
petitive advantage of firms was predominantly based on their capacity to internally produce
and organize proprietary assets and purposefully match them to local market needs, in the
past decade the emphasis has moved to firms’ capabilities to access and organize knowledge
intensive assets worldwide (Dunning, 2000).

IM scholars are increasingly focusing their research efforts on new models and strategies
for multinationals that can match the growing level of global integration characterizing a
number of industries (Kim, Park, & Prescott, 2003; London & Hart, 2004; Meyer, 2006).
Because companies now have the technological option to efficiently migrate a number of
white-collar activities to offshore locations (Doh, 2005), the capacity of transferring knowledge
across multiple settings is becoming a key research topic (Cummings, 2004; Hansen & Lovas,
2004; Martin & Salomon, 2003). The related creation of globally distributed professional
teams has generated new challenges related to the management of multinational teams. The
concept of global virtual teams (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Metiu,
2006) has thus gained centrality in IM studies and has significantly contributed to the increased
focus on subsidiary and multinational team management. The Journal of International
Business Studies has published most of the IM articles for each of the three categories. The
Strategic Management Journal has been an important platform for studies concerned with the

214 Journal of Management / April 2009

models and the strategies of multinational enterprises, Management Science for issues rela-
tive to the transfer of knowledge, and Organization Science for works on geographically dis-
tributed teams.

Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of this article was to tackle two major limitations identified in the body of
published IM reviews. The first limitation was their failure to include a representative sam-
ple of management journals when searching for IM contributions (Inkpen, 2001). Previous
reviews focused on a restricted number of journals, often limiting their search to journals
exclusively dedicated to international matters (Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb,
2000). This led to biased results that did not provide a real sense of the pervasiveness of IM
contributions in the mainstream management area. The second limitation was the time peri-
ods considered, because most of the reviews investigated IM articles published before 2000
(Acedo & Casillas, 2005; DuBois & Reeb, 2000; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002).

The purpose of this study was to thoroughly review IM research and address these two
limitations. In the first section, I provided an updated reassessment of IM, examining the
amount and type of IM research published in 20 top management journals from 2002 to
2006. By using the methodology of Werner (2002) and Werner and Brouthers (2002), I was
able to compare results across the different studies, hence providing a comprehensive review
of the field. In the second section, I identified patterns in the publication of IM research in
leading management journals, which resulted in some interesting findings.

My aim in this work was to contribute to the IM literature on two grounds. This article
provides an updated picture of the field, and it uncovers the current positioning of leading
management journals with respect to their exposure to IM research. Findings from this study
may prove extremely valuable for IM scholars interested in understanding the evolution of
IM research over time and the different IM publication patterns of top management journals.

The main conclusions of this study are the following. The findings confirm the generalized
notion (Inkpen, 2001; Werner, 2002; Werner & Brouthers, 2002) that IM is steadily increasing
its presence in the management area. Although in the 1976-1980 period only 1.6% of the arti-
cles published in the 20 selected journals belonged to IM research (Werner & Brouthers, 2002),
in 1996-2000 this percentage rose to 5.5% (Werner, 2002) and in 2002-2006 it reached almost
7%. In terms of the distribution of IM research across categories and journals, no dramatic
changes have occurred, especially in the last decade. The Journal of International Business
Studies continues to be the reference point for IM research. Furthermore, there continues to be
a high degree of concentration of IM studies in a few academic journals. Eight of the 20 jour-
nals considered have consistently published more than 90% of all IM research over time, with
this figure being confirmed also for the 2002-2006 period.

The investigation of top management journals’ IM publication patterns provides insight-
ful indications of how outlets differentiate themselves in their exposure to IM topics. A pre-
liminary discussion on the selection of leading management journals led to the update of
Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1992) list of top management journals, with the inclusion of
Organization Science and Organization Studies. These two outlets proved to be important
publishers of IM research and confirmed the relevance of their inclusion.

Pisani / International Management Research 215

In terms of the IM publication patterns of the management journals selected, the results
show that the journals that published most of IM research during the period studied, namely
the Journal of International Business Studies, the Management International Review, the
Strategic Management Journal, and the Journal of Management Studies, demonstrated a
more balanced distribution of published articles across the 12 categories. Conversely, the
management outlets that published a limited amount of IM research tended to specialize in
a few categories and consequently published mainly works related to a few IM research sub-
streams. This fact is rather ordinary in the academic world, because it is often the case that
a specific journal becomes the preferred and sometimes the only legitimate academic plat-
form for discussing a particular management research topic.

A more fine-grained analysis of the 2002-2006 period reveals some interesting material
with which to discuss key questions about the development of IM research. Why does IM
research continue to be highly concentrated in a few top management journals? The results
show that outlets that published less IM research tended to specialize in very few IM cate-
gories. However, a yearly analysis of 2002-2006 confirms an emerging pattern in which jour-
nals that were characterized by a restricted and more specific IM exposure steadily increased
their relative weights in the publication of IM articles. I hope this is a sign of their increased
awareness of the importance of IM research in the management area. It is difficult to fore-
cast whether their specialization in few IM categories will harm their further exposure to IM
research. Yet, the tendency to publish articles on few IM topics does not seem to be the only
important constraint. Issues related to the number and quality of IM articles submitted to
such journals as well as the presence of IM scholars on these journals’ editorial boards seem
to be relevant in understanding their current limited exposure to IM research.

Another key question deals with the direction of IM research in terms of its content: Will
certain categories become more relevant than others in the development of the IM field? The
results of this review provide a preliminary answer by delineating a surge of interest in four
categories. The global business environment is gaining prominence because the analysis of
the institutional variables of developing countries is becoming fundamental in understand-
ing the globalization of business. Multinational enterprises are changing their business
models and strategies to compete in newly internationalized markets. Recent progress in
telecommunications technology has reduced the costs of operating remotely (Nachum &
Zaheer, 2005), giving companies the opportunity to globally source individual value activi-
ties. How to transfer knowledge across subsidiaries and how to handle geographically dis-
tributed teams are topics that are attracting increasing research efforts in IM research. This
trend is expected to become even clearer, as multinational corporations are rapidly reconfig-
uring themselves as “portfolios of capabilities and relationships positioned within a global
network of business processes” (Venkatraman, 2004: 16).

This study is not exempt of limitations. The subjective methodology used and its related dis-
advantages have already been discussed here. Furthermore, the analysis of the journals’ publi-
cation patterns does not include changes in their editorial boards. The difficulty of including
such data is not related to the availability of this kind of information. Other studies have already
used it, for example, to rank schools with an international business orientation (Chan et al.,
2006). The complexity lies instead in the fact that it is difficult to fully capture the modifications
made by a new editorial board in a 5-year period. This difficulty arises especially because the
change of the editorial board in a journal is typically a lengthy process. Nonetheless, it is worth

216 Journal of Management / April 2009

stressing that editors remain key actors in defining journals’ publication patterns. Future
research should thus investigate their precise role in determining the relative IM exposure of
top management journals.

The high concentration of IM studies in a few top management journals also needs fur-
ther consideration. The findings of this study confirm that most IM research is published in
a limited number of management outlets. Nonetheless, the results also illustrate an overall
steady increase of IM research in the management area as well as an increasing effort of cer-
tain journals to enhance their IM exposure. We can hope that these findings are a positive
sign that IM matters will ultimately receive their deserved attention.

References

Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. 2005. Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation
analysis. International Business Review, 14: 616-639.

Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger?
Organization Studies, 25(3): 415-443.

Boddewyn, J. J. 1999. The domain of international management. Journal of International Management, 5: 3-14.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H. G., & Leung, K. 2006. International business research: Trends and school rankings.

International Business Review, 15: 317-338.
Child, J., & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in

emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 95-125.
Christmann, P. 2004. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental

policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 747-760.
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of

symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 863-878.
Cummings, J. N. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization.

Management Science, 50(3): 352-364.
Doh, J. P. 2005. Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and

practice. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 695-704.
Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. J. 2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge

economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Drori, G. S., Jang, Y. S., & Meyer, J. W. 2006. Sources of rationalized governance: Cross-national longitudinal

analyses 1985-2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2): 205-229.
DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. 2000. Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business

Studies, 31(4): 689-704.
Dunning, J. H. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity.

International Business Review, 9: 163-190.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1992. Determinant of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 35(5): 921-955.
Hansen, M. T., & Lovas, B. 2004. How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving

from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9): 801-822.
Henisz, W. J., & Zelner, B. A. 2005. Legitimacy, interest group pressures, and change in emergent institutions: The

case of foreign investors and host country governments. Academy of Management Review, 30: 361-382.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams.

Organization Science, 14(6): 615-632.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating

effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3): 290-307.
Inkpen, A. C. 2001. A note on ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies,

32(1): 193-196.
Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. 1994. An analysis of twenty-five years of research in the journal of international busi-

ness studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4): 703-713.

Pisani / International Management Research 217

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. 2007. What causes a management article to be cited—
Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 491-506.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2004. Globalization and convergence in corporate governance: Evidence from Infosys
and the Indian software industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 484-507.

Kim, K., Park, J. H., & Prescott, J. E. 2003. The global integration of business functions: A study of multinational
businesses in integrated global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 327-344.

London, T., & Hart, S. L. 2004. Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the transnational model.
Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 350-370.

Lu, J. W. 2003. The evolving contributions in international strategic management research. Journal of International
Management, 9(2): 193-213.

Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multina-
tional corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 356-373.

Martinez, Z. L., & Toyne, B. 2000. What is international management, and what is its domain. Journal of
International Management, 6: 11-28.

Metiu, A. 2006. Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17(4): 418-435.
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Global focusing: From domestic conglomerates to global specialists. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(5): 1109-1144.
Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources,

and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 600-621.
Morrison, A. J., & Inkpen, A. C. 1991. An analysis of significant contributions to the international business litera-

ture. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1): 143-153.
Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. 2005. The persistence of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for

foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8): 747-767.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2005. The influence of management jour-

nal in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 473-488.
Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. 2004. New frontiers in international strategy.

Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 175-200.
Ricks, D. A. 1985. International business research: past, present and future. Journal of International Business

Studies, 16: 1-4.
Ricks, D. A. 1991. Letter from the editor-in-chief. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 1-4.
Ricks, D. A., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. 1990. Recent developments in international management research. Journal

of Management, 16(2): 219-253.
Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of

Management, 29: 883-902.
Vaaler, P. M., Schrage, B. N., & Block, S. A. 2005. Counting the investor vote: Political business cycle effects on

sovereign bond spreads in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 62-88.
Van Fleet, D. D., McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. 2000. A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings:

the case of formal lists. Journal of Management, 26(5): 839-861.
Venkatraman, N. V. 2004. Offshoring without guilt. Sloan Management Review, 45(3): 14-16.
Weitzel, U., & Berns, S. 2006. Cross-border takeovers, corruption, and related aspects of governance. Journal of

International Business Studies, 37(6): 786-806.
Werner, S. 2002. Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top management jour-

nals. Journal of Management, 28(3): 277-305.
Werner, S., & Brouthers, L. E. 2002. How international is management? Journal of International Business Studies,

33(3): 583-591.
Yang, Z., Wang, X., & Su, C. 2006. A review of research methodologies in international business. International

Business Review, 15: 601-617.

218 Journal of Management / April 2009

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Bold /ACaslon-BoldItalic /ACaslon-Italic /ACaslon-Ornaments /ACaslon-Regular /ACaslon-Semibold /ACaslon-SemiboldItalic /AdobeCorpID-Acrobat /AdobeCorpID-Adobe /AdobeCorpID-Bullet /AdobeCorpID-MinionBd /AdobeCorpID-MinionBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionRg /AdobeCorpID-MinionRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionSb /AdobeCorpID-MinionSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBd /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBl /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBlIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLtIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadPkg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSb /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScnIt /AdobeCorpID-PScript /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-ItalicOsF /Aldus-Roman /Aldus-RomanSC /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /AmazoneBT-Regular /AmericanTypewriter-Bold /AmericanTypewriter-BoldA /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCond /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Cond /AmericanTypewriter-CondA /AmericanTypewriter-Light /AmericanTypewriter-LightA /AmericanTypewriter-LightCond /AmericanTypewriter-LightCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Medium /AmericanTypewriter-MediumA /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /ArrusBT-Black /ArrusBT-BlackItalic /ArrusBT-Bold /ArrusBT-BoldItalic /ArrusBT-Italic /ArrusBT-Roman /AssemblyLightSSK /AuroraBT-BoldCondensed /AuroraBT-RomanCondensed /AuroraOpti-Condensed /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /Avenir-Black /Avenir-BlackOblique /Avenir-Book /Avenir-BookOblique /Avenir-Heavy /Avenir-HeavyOblique /Avenir-Light /Avenir-LightOblique /Avenir-Medium /Avenir-MediumOblique /Avenir-Oblique /Avenir-Roman /BaileySansITC-Bold /BaileySansITC-BoldItalic /BaileySansITC-Book /BaileySansITC-BookItalic /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /Baskerville-Bold /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Baskerville-Normal-Italic /BauerBodoni-Black /BauerBodoni-BlackCond /BauerBodoni-BlackItalic /BauerBodoni-Bold /BauerBodoni-BoldCond /BauerBodoni-BoldItalic /BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-BoldOsF /BauerBodoni-Italic /BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-Roman /BauerBodoni-RomanSC /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Light /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Benguiat-Bold /Benguiat-BoldItalic /Benguiat-Book /Benguiat-BookItalic /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BoldItal /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /BenguiatITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatITCbyBT-BoldItalic /BenguiatITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatITCbyBT-BookItalic /Benguiat-Medium /Benguiat-MediumItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular /BernhardFashionBT-Regular /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /BernhardTangoBT-Regular /BlockBE-Condensed /BlockBE-ExtraCn /BlockBE-ExtraCnIt /BlockBE-Heavy /BlockBE-Italic /BlockBE-Regular /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /BroadwayBT-Regular /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Caliban /CarminaBT-Bold /CarminaBT-BoldItalic /CarminaBT-Light /CarminaBT-LightItalic /CarminaBT-Medium /CarminaBT-MediumItalic /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonOpenFace /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /CaxtonBT-Bold /CaxtonBT-BoldItalic /CaxtonBT-Book /CaxtonBT-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /Century-Bold /Century-BoldItalic /Century-Book /Century-BookItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Bold /CenturyExpandedBT-BoldItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Italic /CenturyExpandedBT-Roman /Century-HandtooledBold /Century-HandtooledBoldItalic /Century-Light /Century-LightItalic /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CenturySchoolbookBT-Bold /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldCond /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldItalic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Italic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Roman /Century-Ultra /Century-UltraItalic /CharterBT-Black /CharterBT-BlackItalic /CharterBT-Bold /CharterBT-BoldItalic /CharterBT-Italic /CharterBT-Roman /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldCondItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldExtraCondensed /CheltenhamBT-BoldHeadline /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalicHeadline /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Cheltenham-HandtooledBdIt /Cheltenham-HandtooledBold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Bold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Book /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BookItalic /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMR10 /CMR8 /CMSY10 /CMSY8 /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CooperBT-Bold /CooperBT-BoldItalic /CooperBT-Light /CooperBT-LightItalic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DellaRobbiaBT-Bold /DellaRobbiaBT-Roman /Della-RobbiaItalicBT /Della-RobbiaSCaps /Del-NormalSmallCaps /Delphin-IA /Delphin-IIA /Delta-Bold /Delta-BoldItalic /Delta-Book /Delta-BookItalic /Delta-Light /Delta-LightItalic /Delta-Medium /Delta-MediumItalic /Delta-Outline /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /DomCasual /DomCasual-Bold /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ELANGO-IB-A03 /ELANGO-IB-A75 /ELANGO-IB-A99 /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /ElGreco /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /Euclid /Euclid-Bold /Euclid-BoldItalic /EuclidExtra /EuclidExtra-Bold /EuclidFraktur /EuclidFraktur-Bold /Euclid-Italic /EuclidMathOne /EuclidMathOne-Bold /EuclidMathTwo /EuclidMathTwo-Bold /EuclidSymbol /EuclidSymbol-Bold /EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic /EuclidSymbol-Italic /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /EuroSans-Bold /EuroSans-BoldItalic /EuroSans-Italic /EuroSans-Regular /EuroSerif-Bold /EuroSerif-BoldItalic /EuroSerif-Italic /EuroSerif-Regular /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldCondensed /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-BoldOblique /Eurostile-Condensed /Eurostile-Demi /Eurostile-DemiOblique /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EurostileLTStd-Demi /EurostileLTStd-DemiOblique /Eurostile-Oblique /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /FairfieldLH-Bold /FairfieldLH-BoldItalic /FairfieldLH-BoldSC /FairfieldLH-CaptionBold /FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy /FairfieldLH-CaptionLight /FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium /FairfieldLH-Heavy /FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic /FairfieldLH-HeavySC /FairfieldLH-Light /FairfieldLH-LightItalic /FairfieldLH-LightSC /FairfieldLH-Medium /FairfieldLH-MediumItalic /FairfieldLH-MediumSC /FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF /Fences /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Flood /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDAaOsF /FontanaNDAaOsF-Italic /FontanaNDCcOsF-Semibold /FontanaNDCcOsF-SemiboldIta /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold /FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic /FontanaNDEeOsF-Light /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /ForteMT /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FrankfurterHigD /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Demi /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-DemiItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Heavy /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /Freeform721BT-Bold /Freeform721BT-BoldItalic /Freeform721BT-Italic /Freeform721BT-Roman /FreestyleScrD /Freestylescript /FreestyleScript /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-CondensedLight /Futura-CondensedLightOblique /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /Futura-Thin /Galliard-Black /Galliard-BlackItalic /Galliard-Bold /Galliard-BoldItalic /Galliard-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Bold /GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Galliard-Roman /Galliard-Ultra /Galliard-UltraItalic /Garamond-Antiqua /GaramondBE-Bold /GaramondBE-BoldExpert /GaramondBE-BoldOsF /GaramondBE-CnExpert /GaramondBE-Condensed /GaramondBE-CondensedSC /GaramondBE-Italic /GaramondBE-ItalicExpert /GaramondBE-ItalicOsF /GaramondBE-Medium /GaramondBE-MediumCn /GaramondBE-MediumCnExpert /GaramondBE-MediumCnOsF /GaramondBE-MediumExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalic /GaramondBE-MediumItalicExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalicOsF /GaramondBE-MediumSC /GaramondBE-Regular /GaramondBE-RegularExpert /GaramondBE-RegularSC /GaramondBE-SwashItalic /Garamond-Bold /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BoldItalic /Garamond-Book /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /Garamond-HandtooledBold /Garamond-HandtooledBoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-Light /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /Garamond-LightItalic /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-Ligh /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-LighItal /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-BoldItalicOsF /GaramondThree-BoldSC /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThree-ItalicOsF /GaramondThree-SC /GaramondThreeSMSIISpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSitalicSpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /Garamond-Ultra /Garamond-UltraCondensed /Garamond-UltraCondensedItalic /Garamond-UltraItalic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldExtraCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-ExtraBoldDisplay /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-LightShadowed /GillSans-Shadowed /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Gothic-Thirteen /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /GoudyCatalogueBT-Regular /Goudy-ExtraBold /GoudyHandtooledBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-RegularCond /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Black /GoudySans-BlackItalic /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySans-Book /GoudySans-BookItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Black /GoudySansITCbyBT-BlackItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Light /GoudySansITCbyBT-LightItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Compressed /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-Light-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Condensed-Thin /Helvetica-ExtraCompressed /Helvetica-Fraction /Helvetica-FractionBold /HelveticaInserat-Roman /HelveticaInserat-Roman-SemiBold /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-Black /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackExt /HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightExt /HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-Thin /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-ThinItalic /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLight /HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal /Helvetica-Oblique /Helvetica-UltraCompressed /HelvExtCompressed /HelvLight /HelvUltCompressed /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist531BT-BlackA /Humanist531BT-BoldA /Humanist531BT-RomanA /Humanist531BT-UltraBlackA /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackCondB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightCondensedB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /Humanist777BT-RomanCondensedB /Humanist970BT-BoldC /Humanist970BT-RomanC /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Black /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Bold /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Italic /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Roman /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /Iglesia-Light /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Light /Imago-LightItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /ITCGaramondMM /ITCGaramondMM-It /JAKEOpti-Regular /JansonText-Bold /JansonText-BoldItalic /JansonText-Italic /JansonText-Roman /JansonText-RomanSC /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /Juniper /KabelITCbyBT-Book /KabelITCbyBT-Demi /KabelITCbyBT-Medium /KabelITCbyBT-Ultra /Kaufmann /Kaufmann-Bold /KeplMM-Or2 /KisBT-Italic /KisBT-Roman /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Linotext /Lithos-Black /LithosBold /Lithos-Bold /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaHandwritingItalic /LucidaMath-Symbol /LucidaSansTypewriter /LucidaSansTypewriter-Bd /LucidaSansTypewriter-BdObl /LucidaSansTypewriter-Obl /LucidaTypewriter /LucidaTypewriter-Bold /LucidaTypewriter-BoldObl /LucidaTypewriter-Obl /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Machine /Machine-Bold /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /MatrixScriptBold /MatrixScriptBoldLin /MatrixScriptBook /MatrixScriptBookLin /MatrixScriptRegular /MatrixScriptRegularLin /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Bold /Meridien-BoldItalic /Meridien-Italic /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /Minion-DisplayItalic /Minion-DisplayRegular /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps /MrsEavesAllSmallCaps /MrsEavesBold /MrsEavesFractions /MrsEavesItalic /MrsEavesPetiteCaps /MrsEavesRoman /MrsEavesRomanLining /MrsEavesSmallCaps /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /MyriadMM /MyriadMM-It /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book /NeuzeitS-BookHeavy /NewBaskerville-Bold /NewBaskerville-BoldItalic /NewBaskerville-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman /NewBaskerville-Roman /NewCaledonia /NewCaledonia-Black /NewCaledonia-BlackItalic /NewCaledonia-Bold /NewCaledonia-BoldItalic /NewCaledonia-BoldItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-BoldSC /NewCaledonia-Italic /NewCaledonia-ItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-SC /NewCaledonia-SemiBold /NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Bold /NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Italic /NewCenturySchlbk-Roman /NewsGothic /NewsGothic-Bold /NewsGothic-BoldOblique /NewsGothicBT-Bold /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic /NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic /NewsGothicBT-Demi /NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic /NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Italic /NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Light /NewsGothicBT-LightItalic /NewsGothicBT-Roman /NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed /NewsGothic-Oblique /New-Symbol /NovareseITCbyBT-Bold /NovareseITCbyBT-BoldItalic /NovareseITCbyBT-Book /NovareseITCbyBT-BookItalic /Nueva-BoldExtended /Nueva-Roman /NuptialScript /OceanSansMM /OceanSansMM-It /OfficinaSans-Bold /OfficinaSans-BoldItalic /OfficinaSans-Book /OfficinaSans-BookItalic /OfficinaSerif-Bold /OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic /OfficinaSerif-Book /OfficinaSerif-BookItalic /OnyxMT /Optima /Optima-Bold /Optima-BoldItalic /Optima-BoldOblique /Optima-ExtraBlack /Optima-ExtraBlackItalic /Optima-Italic /Optima-Oblique /OSPIRE-Plain /OttaIA /Otta-wa /Ottawa-BoldA /OttawaPSMT /Oxford /Palatino-Bold /Palatino-BoldItalic /Palatino-Italic /Palatino-Roman /Parisian /Perpetua /Perpetua-Bold /Perpetua-BoldItalic /Perpetua-Italic /PhotinaMT /PhotinaMT-Bold /PhotinaMT-BoldItalic /PhotinaMT-Italic /PhotinaMT-SemiBold /PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic /PhotinaMT-UltraBold /PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic /Plantin /Plantin-Bold /Plantin-BoldItalic /Plantin-Italic /Plantin-Light /Plantin-LightItalic /Plantin-Semibold /Plantin-SemiboldItalic /Poetica-ChanceryI /Poetica-SuppLowercaseEndI /PopplLaudatio-Italic /PopplLaudatio-Medium /PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic /PopplLaudatio-Regular /ProseAntique-Bold /ProseAntique-Normal /QuaySansEF-Black /QuaySansEF-BlackItalic /QuaySansEF-Book /QuaySansEF-BookItalic /QuaySansEF-Medium /QuaySansEF-MediumItalic /Quorum-Black /Quorum-Bold /Quorum-Book /Quorum-Light /Quorum-Medium /Raleigh /Raleigh-Bold /Raleigh-DemiBold /Raleigh-Medium /Revival565BT-Bold /Revival565BT-BoldItalic /Revival565BT-Italic /Revival565BT-Roman /Ribbon131BT-Bold /Ribbon131BT-Regular /RMTMI /Rockwell /Rockwell-Bold /Rockwell-BoldItalic /Rockwell-Italic /Rockwell-Light /Rockwell-LightItalic /RotisSansSerif /RotisSansSerif-Bold /RotisSansSerif-ExtraBold /RotisSansSerif-Italic /RotisSansSerif-Light /RotisSansSerif-LightItalic /RotisSemiSans /RotisSemiSans-Bold /RotisSemiSans-ExtraBold /RotisSemiSans-Italic /RotisSemiSans-Light /RotisSemiSans-LightItalic /RotisSemiSerif /RotisSemiSerif-Bold /RotisSerif /RotisSerif-Bold /RotisSerif-Italic /RunicMT-Condensed /Sabon-Bold /Sabon-BoldItalic /Sabon-Italic /Sabon-Roman /SackersGothicLight /SackersGothicLightAlt /SackersItalianScript /SackersItalianScriptAlt /Sam /Sanvito-Light /SanvitoMM /Sanvito-Roman /Semitica /Semitica-Italic /SIVAMATH /Siva-Special /SMS-SPELA /Souvenir-Demi /Souvenir-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi /SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Light /SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic /Souvenir-Light /Souvenir-LightItalic /SpecialAA /Special-Gali /Sp-Sym /StempelGaramond-Bold /StempelGaramond-BoldItalic /StempelGaramond-Italic /StempelGaramond-Roman /StoneSans /StoneSans-Bold /StoneSans-BoldItalic /StoneSans-Italic /StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSans-PhoneticIPA /StoneSans-Semibold /StoneSans-SemiboldItalic /StoneSerif /StoneSerif-Italic /StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA /StoneSerif-Semibold /StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic /Swiss721BT-Black /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackExtended /Swiss721BT-BlackItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackOutline /Swiss721BT-BlackRounded /Swiss721BT-Bold /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldExtended /Swiss721BT-BoldItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldRounded /Swiss721BT-Heavy /Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic /Swiss721BT-Italic /Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed /Swiss721BT-Light /Swiss721BT-LightCondensed /Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-LightExtended /Swiss721BT-LightItalic /Swiss721BT-Medium /Swiss721BT-MediumItalic /Swiss721BT-Roman /Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed /Swiss721BT-RomanExtended /Swiss721BT-Thin /Swiss721BT-ThinItalic /Swiss921BT-RegularA /Symbol /Syntax-Black /Syntax-Bold /Syntax-Italic /Syntax-Roman /Syntax-UltraBlack /Tekton /Times-Bold /Times-BoldA /Times-BoldItalic /Times-BoldOblique /Times-Italic /Times-NewRoman /Times-NewRomanBold /Times-Oblique /Times-PhoneticAlternate /Times-PhoneticIPA /Times-Roman /Times-RomanSmallCaps /Times-Sc /Times-SCB /Times-special /TimesTenGreekP-Upright /TradeGothic /TradeGothic-Bold /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl /TradeGothic-BoldOblique /TradeGothic-BoldTwo /TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique /TradeGothic-CondEighteen /TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl /TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended /TradeGothicLH-Extended /TradeGothic-Light /TradeGothic-LightOblique /TradeGothic-Oblique /Trajan-Bold /TrajanPro-Bold /TrajanPro-Regular /Trajan-Regular /Transitional521BT-BoldA /Transitional521BT-CursiveA /Transitional521BT-RomanA /Transitional551BT-MediumB /Transitional551BT-MediumItalicB /Univers /Universal-GreekwithMathPi /Universal-NewswithCommPi /Univers-BlackExt /Univers-BlackExtObl /Univers-Bold /Univers-BoldExt /Univers-BoldExtObl /Univers-BoldOblique /Univers-Condensed /Univers-CondensedBold /Univers-CondensedBoldOblique /Univers-CondensedOblique /Univers-Extended /Univers-ExtendedObl /Univers-ExtraBlackExt /Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl /Univers-Light /Univers-LightOblique /UniversLTStd-Black /UniversLTStd-BlackObl /Univers-Oblique /Utopia-Black /Utopia-BlackOsF /Utopia-Bold /Utopia-BoldItalic /Utopia-Italic /Utopia-Ornaments /Utopia-Regular /Utopia-Semibold /Utopia-SemiboldItalic /VAGRounded-Black /VAGRounded-Bold /VAGRounded-Light /VAGRounded-Thin /Viva-BoldExtraExtended /Viva-Regular /Weidemann-Black /Weidemann-BlackItalic /Weidemann-Bold /Weidemann-BoldItalic /Weidemann-Book /Weidemann-BookItalic /Weidemann-Medium /Weidemann-MediumItalic /WindsorBT-Elongated /WindsorBT-Light /WindsorBT-LightCondensed /WindsorBT-Roman /Wingdings-Regular /WNCYB10 /WNCYI10 /WNCYR10 /WNCYSC10 /WNCYSS10 /WoodtypeOrnaments-One /WoodtypeOrnaments-Two /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal /ZapfChancery-MediumItalic /ZapfDingbats /ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular /ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold /ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold /ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi /ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra /ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic /ZurichBT-Black /ZurichBT-BlackExtended /ZurichBT-BlackItalic /ZurichBT-Bold /ZurichBT-BoldCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-BoldExtended /ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldItalic /ZurichBT-ExtraBlack /ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-Italic /ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed /ZurichBT-Light /ZurichBT-LightCondensed /ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-LightItalic /ZurichBT-Roman /ZurichBT-RomanCondensed /ZurichBT-RomanExtended /ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended ] /NeverEmbed [ true /TimesNewRomanPS /TimesNewRomanPS-Bold /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalic /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT /TimesNewRomanPS-Italic /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description << /DAN
/DEU
/ESP
/FRA
/ITA
/JPN
/NLD
/NOR
/PTB
/SUO
/SVE
/ENU (Use these settings for creating PDF files for submission to The Sheridan Press. These settings configured for Acrobat v6.0 08/06/03.)
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<< /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >>
<< /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >>
<< /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /ConvertColors /NoConversion /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /NA /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 6
/MarksWeight 0.250000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged
/UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Module 2 – M2 Assignment 2 – Operating Globally ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now