Search results

Over the decade the trend of Global Fortune 500 firms has shown significant changes – Japanese and Chinese firms in particular. The purpose of this paper is to present trend analysis of Global Fortune 500 – Japanese and Chinese firms. Key research questions are: what are the relevant macro-level changes that have affected the growth and decline of Japanese and Chinese firms? What are the industry-level changes that have occurred in Japanese and Chinese firms in terms of firm characteristics and financial performances? What are the lessons and implications from the firms added to or removed from Global Fortune 500? Data analysis is conducted based on Fortune database from 1995 to 2013.

The study employs descriptive analysis to examine the trend of Japanese and Chinese firms listed in Global Fortune 500 including: based on revenue and profit figures from 1995 to 2013; the authors perform trend analysis for each of those five types from 1995 to 2013; the authors replicate the analyses for different industry types in terms of the above five types; the authors compare the performances of Japanese and Chinese firms; based on 2011-2013 data, the authors conduct more in-depth analysis for selected firms.

The findings suggest five distinct types of firms including “Sustainables,” “New Comers,” “Move Ups,” “Decliners,” and “Drop Outs”; it is interesting to note that the changes in Global Fortune 500 firms suggest how these two countries show their relative competitive advantage. Chinese firms show steady flows of new firms that join in the rank of Global Fortune 500 whereas Japanese firms suggest continuous drop of firms that move out of Global Fortune 500 firms. As China increases its size of economy, state-owned financial institutions, resource-focus firms (e.g. mining and petroleum) firms also rapidly increased its overall size. Although the number is still small, privately owned Chinese global firms (e.g. Lenovo, Huawei, Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, Ping An Insurance) also are now listed as Global Fortune 500 firms. In contrast, Japanese firms that lost their global market positions steadily disappeared from Global Fortune 500 firms. Representative firms include Daiei, Mitsubishi Motor Company, and NEC.

One limitation of the analysis on financial indicators is that the authors select only a few firms and focus only on two time points. Nevertheless, it provides the authors information about the financial factors that characterize the two types of Global Fortune 500 firms. Moreover, it opens up new opportunities for future research.

Factors that influence the behaviors of Global Fortune 500 firms suggest both external environmental and internal managerial factors. Although serious external factors (e.g. Global Financial Crisis) affect the outcomes of these competitive positioning, it is still the managerial leadership that makes differences in cases of many Japanese firms. To Japanese firms maintaining domestic advantage is not enough to sustain their position in Global Fortune 500. Global competitiveness matters. On the other hand, it is unclear whether changes occurring in Chinese firms are more managerial than externally dictated. In case of many Chinese financial firms and resource rich firms, the huge domestic advantage has much to do with their position in Global Fortune 500.

This is the first trend analysis that examines the Global Fortune 500 firms from Japan and China. The authors identify five types of firms that would be an important basis for the further benchmarking studies of Global Fortune 500 firms in other counties (e.g. the USA, Germany, Korea, and other Emerging Economies – Russia, India, Brazil).

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of factors that impact global competitiveness for firms in the Fortune Global 500.

The paper uses regression analysis to investigate the relationship between relevant competitiveness factors and firm performance for Fortune Global 500 firms, using the time period 1995‐2009.

The composition of firms on the list has changed over the timeframe. The results indicate that headquarters location and globalization are key indicators of firm performance. Other factors such as chief executive officer tenure have a lesser impact on firm performance.

The timeframe of the study may have impacted the findings. The study included only large firms and thus the findings may not hold for smaller or medium‐sized firms. Additional follow‐up studies are planned.

Managers can identify factors associated with global competitiveness from the paper and pursue those factors in their business strategies.

This study replicates other studies that analyze the relationship between firm situational factors and firm performance. However, this study uses a unique sample, the Fortune Global 500, over a 15‐year period.

This paper aims to determine the impact of corporate governance practices on the financial outcomes of Fortune Global 500 Companies, thus covering impact of geographical differences (USA and non-USA) as well.

The study is a quantitative research based on a positivist paradigm using deductive reasoning and secondary data collection. Data collection has been done from secondary sources (annual reports, Edgar submissions and financial statistics from renowned financial databases such as yahoo.finance, Bloomberg, Ycharts statistics and Morningstar. Data were collected for 8 years (2005-2012).

The study found a strong positive relationship between corporate governance and firm performance. Smaller board sizes are found to generate better firm performance in Fortune Global 500 Companies. Frequency of board meetings have also been found to have inverse relationship with firm performance. The study supports board independence to improve transparency in board decision-making process. CEO compensation has been found to have inverse relationship with firm performance. The robustness of our results has been measured with the usage of three dependent variables, and we have found same results with varying significance level.

Due to selection of globally broad sample set qualitative aspects of corporate governance could not be covered. Nevertheless, there is a need to go beyond the quantitative techniques (secondary data) of measuring corporate governance mechanisms.

The population set is unique combination of big players and global diversification. Hence, the corporate governance practices of these firms as understood from the results of this study can be bench-marked for emerging corporates of varying global context.

The research is original and unique as it significant and globally diverse population of Fortune Global 500 Companies over a period of 8 years for 11 variables of interest. Results are helpful in bench marking for the rest of market players.

Ongoing environmental threats have intensified the need for firms to take big leaps forward to operate in a manner that is both ecologically sustainable and socially responsible. This paper aims to assess the degree to which firms are adopting citizen science as a tool to achieve sustainability and social responsibility targets.

This study applies a qualitative content analysis approach to assess the current presence of citizen science in sustainability and social responsibility reports issued by Globescan sustainability leaders and by firms ranked by the Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500.

While the term itself is mostly absent from reports, firms are reporting on a range of activities that could be classified as a form of “citizen science.”

Citizen science can help firms achieve their corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility goals and targets. Linking sustainability and social responsibility efforts to this existing framework can help triangulate corporate efforts to engage with stakeholders, collect data about the state of the environment and promote better stewardship of natural resources.

Supporting citizen science can help firms work toward meeting UN Sustainable Development Goals, which have highlighted the importance of collaborative efforts that can engage a broad range of stakeholders in the transition to more sustainable business models.

This paper is the first to examine citizen science in a corporate sustainability and social responsibility context. The findings present information to support improvements to the development of locally relevant science-based indicators; real-time monitoring of natural resources and supply chain sustainability; and participatory forums for stakeholders including suppliers, end users and the broader community.

This paper aims to conduct a longitudinal analysis of the patterns of internationalisation of multinational corporations and provide a measure of their degree of globalisation at the firm-level. There is much debate in the literature on the regional nature of the globalisation of multinational corporations (Rugman and Oh, 2013).

The authors use firm-level sales data to analyse the location of sales and patterns of globalisation of 1,276 companies across ten countries and ten industries from 1998-2012.

The results show that while international sales are rising and the proportion of home region-oriented firms is falling, the majority of sales of the companies in our data set continues to be in the Triad, with little growth in non-Triad regions. The authors find one common theme for the majority of countries, an increase in sales to Asia yet concentrated in just four industries, financials, basic materials, oil and gas and technology. Despite an increase in the percentage of host-region, bi-regional and global companies, 62.6 per cent of the firms have not changed multinational classification over the 15-year period, 43.1 per cent have not expanded out of their home region and 16.4 per cent have not expanded out of their home market. The authors find some evidence of liabilities of interregional foreignness at the industry and country level. The authors show regional sales are moving towards matching global economic activity for the 50 most globalised firms in our study but less so for the other firms in our sample. Overall, the results show that the majority of the growth in internationalisation comes from a small minority of firms.

The authors make several advances across the literature on internationalisation, including a more in-depth longitudinal analysis of firm-level multinationality than exists to date and a novel method of measuring firm-level globalisation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity and threatened species reporting of the top 150 Fortune Global companies. The paper has two main objectives: to explore the extent to which the top 150 Fortune Global companies disclose information about their biodiversity and species conservation practices, and to explore the effects of biodiversity partners and industry on companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting.

The study’s sample is the top 150 Fortune Global companies. Each company’s fiscal year ending 2014 annual report, its 2014 sustainability report, and its company website were content analyzed for evidence of biodiversity and threatened species reporting. This content analysis is supplemented by a detailed analysis that focusses on the sample’s top five reporters, including a phone interview with a senior sustainability manager working at one of these companies. Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the associations between companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting and the presence/absence of biodiversity partners and a company’s industry F&C Asset Management industry category.

The reporting on biodiversity and threatened species by the top 150 Fortune Global companies is quite limited. Few companies (less than 15) are providing any substantial reporting. It was further observed that even among the high scoring companies there is a lack of consistent reporting across all index items. A subsequent empirical examination of these companies’ disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species showed a statistically positive association between the amount of reporting and companies’ holding of biodiversity partnerships. It was also observed that firms categorized as red- and green-zone companies made more disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species than amber-zone companies.

This is the first study to systematically analyze corporate disclosures related to threatened species and habitats. While some prior studies have included the concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’ environmental disclosures, they have done so by examining it as one general category out of many further categories for investigating organizations’ environmental reporting. In the present study, the focus is on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures. As such, this study has the twin research objectives of seeking to illuminate the current state of biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the world’s largest multinationals and provide an appreciation for how certain organizational and industry variables serve to influence these reporting practices. These multiple insights offer companies, and potentially regulators, understanding about how to include (or extend) disclosures on biodiversity loss and species under threat of extinction.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

For many young managers and strategists, few of them will realize just how mighty Japan and its firms were in the 1990s. As the world’s second biggest economy, it saw many of its firms lead their industries in both size and innovation – Toyota and Sony being just two examples – so that they genuinely threatened to overtake the USA and its preeminence. Indeed, when Toyota finally overtook General Motors as the world’s biggest car manufacturer, the effect was felt through Detroit and beyond. Further stories about the similar rise in the price of Tokyo real estate became legendary as well – for example that the well-heeled district of Ginza in central Tokyo was worth more than the whole of California.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

To determine what role overconfidence plays in the forced removal of CEOs internationally.

The study makes use of the Fortune Global 500 list.

We find that overconfident CEOs face significantly greater hazards of forced turnovers than their non-overconfident peers. Regardless of important differences in culture, law, and corporate governance across countries, overconfidence has a separate and distinct effect on CEO turnover. Overconfident CEOs appear to be at greater risk of dismissal regardless of where in the world they are located. We also discover that overconfident CEOs are disproportionately succeeded by other overconfident CEOs, regardless of whether they are forcibly removed or voluntarily leave office. Finally, we determine that the dismissal of overconfident CEOs is associated with improved market performance, but only limited enhancement in accounting returns.

This study is unique with its examination of overconfidence among global CEOs rather than being limited to U.S. chief executives. It also provides insight into how overconfidence is related to national cultures, legal systems and corporate governance mechanisms.

This article aims to present a novel, powerful and proven alternative for the flawed way in which firms traditionally state “company values”.

An analysis was made of the value statements of the 100 largest Fortune Global 500 firms. A literature search on company values was conducted. The authors’ field experience with the use of company values was applied.

A majority of large global companies have stated company values. There is abundant pundits’ advice on how to define, embed and live by company values. Nevertheless, stated company values generally have no impact on performance; worse, they may blow up in managers’ faces, with accusations of hypocrisy. The novel approach overcomes these shortcomings. First, it removes unnegotiable qualities, consigning these to the company’s code of conduct. Second, it no longer states a value as a singular point of perfection but as a position of a cursor on a scale.

This approach looks at a value as a capability, that is, a resource that requires investment and development, one that helps the company to be more effective than its competitors and that its competitors would find hard to imitate readily.

This approach looks at a value as a capability, that is, a resource that requires investment and development, one that helps the company to be more effective than its competitors and that its competitors would find hard to imitate readily.

The article is of value to practicing managers. The approach helps the firm to distinguish itself from competitors in a positive and hard-to-imitate way. It stimulates productive open conversations between the firm’s managers and employees. It leads to statements that both reveal and reinforce the firm’s desired culture.