Social media has become a strategic tool for firms worldwide to drive customer engagement (CE) and enhance business performance, yet limited research has systematically examined how social media content strategies (SMCSs) perform across cultural contexts. To address this gap, we conceptualize SMCS along three key dimensions—content characteristics, content source, and content valence—and develop a meta-analytic model grounded in signaling theory. Drawing on 148 empirical studies comprising 869 effect sizes, we examine the mediating role of CE, through which these content dimensions indirectly impact brand, product-market, and financial market performance. We also assess how national cultural values (i.e., individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity, long-term orientation, and indulgence) moderate the content–engagement link. The findings reveal that CE serves as a key mechanism linking SMCSs to firm performance. Moreover, the strength and direction of these effects vary systematically across cultural values, highlighting important boundary conditions caused by national culture for social media content effectiveness. This study advances research at the intersection of social media and international business by providing a systematic cross-cultural account of how digital content strategies translate into engagement and performance outcomes.

Building on Meyer, van Witteloostuijn, and Beugelsdijk’s (2017) editorial on best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research in IB, we examine the extent to which their guidelines—and related recommendations by Hahn and Ang (2017)—have been adopted in leading IB journals. We analyze all null-hypothesis significance testing-based articles published in the Journal of International Business Studies and the Journal of World Business between 2012 and 2024, using fine-grained inferential trend analyses of methodological and reporting standards alongside state-of-the-art tests for p-hacking and publication bias. Our results indicate meaningful progress in several areas, including greater methodological rigor and transparency. However, adoption remains uneven and has plateaued for several practices. Persistent shortcomings include limited reporting of standard errors, confidence intervals, and effect sizes, incomplete disclosure of robustness analyses and outlier treatment, and the continued predominance of confirmed hypotheses. Moreover, we find no evidence that p-hacking or publication bias have declined over time. Drawing on these results, we outline actionable recommendations for advancing methodological and reporting standards in IB by (1) enhancing transparent reporting, (2) providing convincing evidence, and (3) reporting and probing null and negative results. Overall, our study offers a roadmap for strengthening research credibility in IB.