This paper aims to respond to the response pieces by Burmester (2024) and by Dindial and Voss (2024) to the original paper on “Taming wicked problems through international business policy: recommendations for addressing modern slavery”. Beyond engaging with the issues raised by Burmester (2024) and Dindial and Voss (2024), the follow-up helps further clarify the key difference between so-called “grand challenges” and “wicked problems” for both international business (IB) policymaking and multinational enterprise (MNE) research.
In response to Burmester (2024), the paper juxtaposes key literature on grand challenges and wicked problems to show the theoretical value of applying a wicked problem lens to modern slavery. In engaging with some of the issues raised by Dindial and Voss (2024), this paper further builds on the most current review papers on navigating control and coordination issues within MNEs and the literature on global value chains (GVCs).
The paper operationalises the field of IB policy of relevance to modern slavery research and proposes an augmented conceptual model of MNEs’ control and coordination mechanisms to address modern slavery under conditions of distributed responsibility in their GVCs.
This paper problematizes the grand challenges’ label imposed on modern slavery and leverages a wicked problem theoretical toolkit that can help better guide modern slavery’s global and multi-level governance nexus. The proposed augmented conceptual model also provides a significant attempt to address some of the key theoretical gaps in GVC and MNE control−coordination literature.
