Search results

The chapter is devoted to considering the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic influence on the global and Russian electronics industry. The work aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronic industry in the world and Russia from various angles. As a result of the study, the main features of the global electronic industry are highlighted, including leadership of Western European countries, Japan and the United States in the segment of high price electronics; the leadership of the new industrial countries in a lower price segment; active development of microelectronics as an electronics industry segment and its colossal role in the economy of modern countries; the trend towards acquisitions of small companies by large corporations and other industry. Key problems of the Russian electronics are identified, including a small fraction of the global electronics dependence of Russian industry on imported electronic components, a huge backlog of electronic industry of Russia in comparison of world leaders and the newly industrialized countries, technological backwardness of many enterprises of electronic industry, the low level of qualification as a whole industry. The novelty of the research is highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronics industry. The study highlights both negative consequences (decline in production of many electronic enterprises, disruption of supply chains, insufficient financing of the industry) and positive aspects (active growth of the segment of household appliances and electronics), as well as an impetus to the development of new directions of world electronics (radio-photonics, optoelectronic and quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, laser technology).

In their well-known contribution to the “varieties of capitalism” debate, Peter Hall and David Soskice (2001, Ch. 1) highlight the distinction between a “coordinated market economy” as exemplified by Germany and a “liberal market economy” as exemplified by the United States. Under the heading, “Liberal Market Economies: The American Case”, Hall and Soskice (2001, p. 27), argue:Liberal market economies can secure levels of overall economic performance as high as those of coordinated market economies, but they do so quite differently. In LMEs, firms rely more heavily on market relations to resolve the coordination problems that firms in CMEs address more often via forms of non-market coordination that entail collaboration and strategic interaction. In each of the major spheres of firm endeavor, competitive markets are more robust and there is less institutional support for non-market forms of coordination.

The economic development of Taiwan, from a poor island colony to a world leader in electronic hardware manufacturing, has been spectacular. This study shows that the success of Taiwan may be largely attributed to the synergistic combination of two separate factors: (1) the utilization of unique social capital inherent in the Chinese family entrepreneurs, and (2) the institutional support from the government and other entities, such as Technology Parks, for the creation of scientific and technical knowledge and, most important, for the diffusion and exploitation of technology-based opportunities by these family businesses.

Heavy metals play a crucial role in the economic development of any nation. Industries utilizing heavy metals, consequently, emanate a large volume of metal-containing liquid effluents. Since metals are non-renewable and finite resources, their judicious and sustainable use is the key. Hazardous metal-laden water poses threat to human health and ecology. Apart from metals, these industrial effluents also consist of toxic chemicals. Conventional physical–chemical techniques are not efficient enough as it consumes energy and are, therefore, not cost effective.

It is known that biomaterials namely microorganisms, plants, and agricultural biomass have the competence to bind metals, in some cases, selectively, from aqueous medium. This phenomenon is termed as “metal biosorption.” Biosorption has immense potential of becoming an effective alternative over conventional methods. The authors in the present chapter have used secondary data from their previous research work and attempted to develop few strategic models through their feasibility studies for metal sustainability.

Purpose: Discarded electronic products have become one of the major and dangerous waste streams in the world, which is growing at a fast rate and has become a serious topic of concern. ‘E-waste’ has become a substantial waste stream in recent decades due to rapid technological advancements, consumerism, economic development, urbanisation and obsolescence, resulting in shorter product lifecycles. As a result, in recent years, the management and control of electronic waste have been a cause of concern, as it has a detrimental impact on the environment and the humans who deal with it.

Methodology: This doctrinal-analytical paper aims to analyse legislation enacted for the prevention and reuse of e-waste in India and the implementation of the International Convention regarding e-waste, along with the threat e-waste poses against the Sustainable Development goals set by the United Nations to protect the future.

Findings: One option for dealing with the hazard posed by informal ‘electronic waste’ disposal is to enact punishing restrictions that have a deterrent effect on society. As a result, various environmental rules and standards dealing with e-waste have been implemented in India, directly or indirectly. Because punitive measures in ecological laws dealing with electronic trash have not stopped environmental damage, such enactments have failed. By identifying the source of e-waste (polluters), accountability can be charged to them, which will lead to deterrence; moreover, adapting to a more ecologically efficient e-waste management method will also help reduce e-waste hazards.

To identify points of similarity and differences of emphasis between internalisation theory and global value chain (GVC) theory and to highlight how the latter’s particular approach is useful in analysing the impact of private sustainability standards.

Review of some key texts and reviews of internalisation theory combined with author’s reflections on GVC theory based on his contributions to its development.

GVC theory shares much common ground with the internalisation theory of international business, but their different starting points lead to different strengths and weaknesses. Internalisation theory is strong on the logic of decisions by transnational companies to internalise or externalise their activities. GVC theory is strongest in its consideration of how and why companies manage externalised activities in different ways, and its theory of network governance focuses on how governance challenges change in response to market requirements, shifts in the break point between enterprises, the role of codification in simplifying governance and the control of activities across multiple links in value chains. These factors explain how private and public–private standards in the field of sustainability are both a response to new external demands on value chains and, simultaneously, a means of reducing the complexity of governance challenges that such demands create.

Few attempts have been made to compare the two theories, and value chain theorists have not engaged with the international business literature. The chapter highlights the scope for a continuing and more systematic comparison of the two literatures.