Systematic literature review assesses cultural intelligence's role in sustainable internationalisation, suggesting practical applications for leaders and policymakers.
Purpose Assess how Cultural Intelligence (CI) supports sustainable internationalisation through a review of WoS and Scopus articles across international business, organisational behaviour and sustainability. For this purpose, we define Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) outcomes and theorize CI as a mediator between dynamic managerial capabilities and sustainable internationalisation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a PRISMA-guided Systematic Literature Review (SLR) restricted to articles indexed in the WoS and Scopus databases, and conducts a guided screening with mapping of co-authorship, co-citation, and keywords; qualitative reading to framework linking CI, dynamic capabilities, and ESG performance. Findings From our analysis, five clusters emerged: innovation/small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), dynamic capabilities, institutional adaptation, leadership/emotion, and cultural intelligence/global competence. CI sits at the hub, mediating dynamic managerial capabilities to sustainable outcomes, strongest in SMEs facing institutional voids, via knowledge transfer, legitimacy, and ESG alignment. Research limitations/implications Dependence on indexed journals omits grey literature and some emerging-market views. Future empirical, longitudinal, and multilevel studies should test cultural intelligence mediation and explore circular-economy and crisis-resilience contexts. Practical implications Embedding CI in leader selection, talent metrics, alliance governance, and cross-cultural training reduces psychic distance and speeds foreign learning. Originality/value Combining bibliometric mapping and qualitative synthesis, this study presents CI as a multilevel dynamic capability driving responsible global growth agendas for scholars, managers, and policymakers. We propose a framework linking cultural intelligence to the ESG pillars via knowledge transfer, alliance governance, and ethical decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maldonado et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: