Search results

The research question is how home country corruption and nationalism may affect operations of BRIC multinational enterprises. BRIC composition permits a comparison of two authoritarian regimes and two constitutional democracies. Each BRIC features a different combination of corruption and nationalism. The chapter adds South Africa information for two limited reasons. First, from 2010 South Africa is a member of the BRIC summit process. South Africa is an important entry point to Africa, for BRIC multinationals and particularly for China. Second, concerning corruption and nationalism South Africa is analytically useful as a control context that helps illustrate but does not appear to change highly exploratory BRIC findings.

The chapter draws on limited literature and information concerning corruption and nationalism in BRICs to suggest tentative possibilities. Transparency International provides bribe payers index estimates for 28 large economies, with important multinational enterprises, and corruption perceptions index estimates including those 28 countries. These estimates include the four BRICs and South Africa. The available sources suggest some suggested findings about varying impacts of home country corruption and nationalism on operations of BRIC multinationals.

China and Russia are authoritarian regimes in transition from central planning-oriented communist regimes. They are global military powers, expanding influence in their respective regions. Brazil, India, and South Africa are constitutional democracies. India, a nuclear-armed military power, seeks a regional leadership role in South Asia. Brazil and South Africa are key countries economically in their regions. BRIC multinationals are positioned between home country and host country conditions. Chinese and Russian multinationals may reflect a stronger nationalistic tendency due to home country regimes and ownership structure.

The chapter is an original but highly exploratory inquiry into impacts of corruption and nationalism on BRIC multinationals. Extant BRIC literature tends to understudy effects of home country corruption and nationalism on managerial mindset and incentives in either commercial or state-owned enterprises.

Accompanying the development of economy, multinational enterprises (MNEs), as a role of promoting economic development, may also lead to environmental pollution of host countries. China has become one of the most significant countries in terms of introducing foreign direct investment (FDI), along with which the pollution problem has become serious. Whether the MNEs affect the environment and whether the MNEs in China perform worse than local enterprises attracts more attention. To understand more about it, we creatively build a model of vertical product differentiation, and the result indicates that the environmental performance of MNEs is better than that of local enterprises.

The purpose of this chapter is to develop a framework that can be used to study the impact of multinational enterprises (MNEs) on sustainable development and poverty alleviation in developing countries. In the 3-year project awarded by the EC-FP7 program, six universities from Europe and three partners from developing countries participated: Brazil, Ghana, and India. For this purpose, a thorough literature review is done and a framework is presented. To confirm the conceptual framework, we performed several case studies with three MNEs in two countries, Ghana and India. Data collection was done through qualitative in-depth interviews with managers in the headquarters of MNEs, the subsidiaries, and the “linked” local firms and host governments. Results confirm our conceptual model that the autonomy of the subsidiary, strategies of MNEs, and local government policies play a major role in achieving positive externalities from MNE operations in developing countries. The key contribution of this study is the development of a relevant conceptual framework that can be used in the overall project. Our study confirms that an interaction between the MNE subsidiary and the local government is essential for the linkages and spillovers to occur that may benefit local economic development and poverty reduction in developing countries.

The relationship between multinational enterprises (MNEs) and host governments has seen different waves of trust and mistrust. Over the years, it has changed from a period of conflict after World War II, where MNEs were investing for purposes felt to be contradictory to government policies, to a more cooperative one, where countries are providing incentives and competing with each other to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). The 1990s saw the cooperative relationship leading to the danger of race to the bottom through excessive locational competition. In this chapter, we look at the past, present, and future state of this relationship as reported by different scholars from these periods. We look at the most influential literature from the 1970s onward and the current state of this relationship. Our analysis reveals that the increased tensions are caused by anxiety owing to unanticipated developments in the political economy, company strategies, and government policies. Thanks to globalization MNEs are increasingly becoming more powerful and often this process is accelerated owing to lack of any collaboration between MNEs and the governments. Thus, governments, particularly in emerging markets, are becoming more and more frustrated by the fact that on the one hand they want the MNEs to come and invest in their countries and, on the other hand, they feel that they cannot direct these MNEs to contribute toward economic development and poverty alleviation in their countries. In this chapter, we intend to evaluate the past and the present literature and look ahead to the future. Finally, on the basis of our own studies performed in this project and reported in different chapters of this book, we provide some policy guidelines for host country governments as to how they can encourage MNEs to contribute toward sustainable development and poverty reduction.

In spite of the outstanding efforts of the United Nations, the poverty alleviation targets outlined in Millennium Development Goals have not been fully achieved. The further need for improving the living standard of the world population led to the introduction of a new set of revised and expanded Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. The private business and especially large multinational enterprises (MNEs) are playing a significant role in the implementation of the sustainable development program. However, in spite of decades of research, the mechanisms through which MNEs can contribute to host country economic development are still not fully understood. Furthermore, the role of local government and its possibilities to influence MNEs’ activities have not received sufficient attention. The aim of the MNEmerge project was to develop and test the framework for an analysis of the contribution of MNEs to sustainable development agenda. Specific attention is placed on the formation of linkages between subsidiary and local stakeholders such as society, business, and government. The chapters in this book outline the findings of the project and provide recommendations and implications for policy makers.

This chapter examines the internationalization of the national origin of multinational enterprise (MNEs), starting with European firms at the turn of the 20th century, US firms after World War II, Japanese firms after the 1980s, and, most recently, emerging-market firms, including those from low-income countries such as China and India. The acceleration of this trend in recent decades has been driven by changes in government policy, technology, capital markets and international social networks. As a result, MNEs are being spawned in more countries, in more industries and at earlier stages of a firm's evolution than before. These changes have also transformed the established Western MNE from raw-material-seeker and tariff-jumper to efficiency- and innovation-seeker. Therefore, going forward, the MNE must be viewed as a heterogeneous entity, distinguished by national origin, size and raison d’ệtre – from resource-seeking firms to knowledge-generating and processing firms. The chapter concludes with important questions raised by these developments for future IB research.

South Korean multinational enterprises (MNEs) have developed rapidly since the late 1950s. This chapter investigates South Korean MNEs’ talent management, more specifically international recruitment and selection policies and practices in their Chinese operations.

Using the snowball method through Chinese and Korean networks we recruited ten Korean MNEs to participate in this research. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key individuals within the organisations.

It reveals that South Korean MNEs tend to adopt the polycentric approach or a mixed approach of being polycentric and ethnocentric to international staffing, with the number of expatriates reducing gradually over time. South Korean MNEs adopt ‘one-way selection’ in recruiting and selecting expatriates and localise recruitment procedures and selection criteria for host-country nationals.

South Korean MNEs have paid inadequate attention to: firstly, expatriates’ career development; and secondly, personal and family issues emerging from expatriation and repatriation. This study highlights these issues.

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that sound, mainstream international business (IB) thinking should be applied when assessing the economic opportunities available to multinational enterprises (MNEs) in Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) markets.

We describe and evaluate critically the key points made in the BOP literature about the alleged attractiveness of BOP markets, and the alleged strengths of MNEs to penetrate these markets successfully. We revisit the managerial implications from the BOP literature using an internalization theory lens.

We demonstrate the weak conceptual grounding of conventional BOP thinking, which suggests that MNEs from developed economies should be very entrepreneurial and should systematically serve BOP markets with new products and business models. We also show the fallacy of the idea that a “success template” in one BOP market would be easily replicable in other BOP markets and would allow the MNE to earn economies of scale and scope.

IB researchers should start conducting serious studies on the attractiveness of BOP markets for MNEs. They should also analyze seriously the micro-foundations of successful knowledge recombination in BOP markets and the limits to the transferability of success templates. Mainstream IB theory, namely internalization theory, is particularly well equipped to analyze the costs and benefits of entering BOP markets, building upon a comparative institutional logic.

Senior MNE managers should not allow themselves to be blinded by BOP gurus, advocating the alleged great benefits of penetrating BOP markets. BOP markets may be especially challenging international expansion targets for MNEs because of large institutional voids, high uncertainty, high “distance” vis-à-vis the home country market and the difficulties of transferring relevant knowledge from one BOP market to another.

This chapter is the first to show that mainstream IB research can be usefully applied to analyze the “real” attractiveness of BOP markets for MNEs. Comparative institutional analysis is proven to provide substantially more insight to make BOP market penetration work than past guru-talk on BOP markets.

In their book Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, John M. Dunning and Sarianna M. Lundan offer a generally accepted definition of the term multinational enterprise (MNE): “A Multinational or transnational enterprise is an enterprise that engages in foreign direct investment (FDI) and owns or, in some way controls value added activities in more than one Country” (Dunning & Lundan, p. 3). The title, however, may be misleading since it ignores the fact that each multinational has a home country as well as one or more host countries. Multinationals, in other words, have a nationality. It is the difference between the implications of home and host countries for the individual MNEs that the present chapter explores. It uses a case study involving Teva, Israel's flagship MNE, to address the question: “If Teva changed its nationality, would Israel's economy would be affected?”

The hypothetical case of a change in Teva's nationality and its implications are employed to demonstrate the general validity of the concept of “Distance Premium,” to examine the implication of nationality to individual multinational business enterprises. The chapter explores the proposition that despite its declining effect, due to far reaching technological and political developments, the distance premium, continues to favor home country over host country locations and intra- over interorganizational value activities. The chapter goes on to examine expected changes in the distribution of rents generated by the MNEs between different stakeholder groups. It concludes that, with the exception of stockholders whose welfare is generally not affected by change of nationality, other stakeholders in the new home country gain at the expense of old home country stakeholders.

International business (IB) as a discipline has given limited attention to contemporary grand challenges of inequality, global warming, aging populations, endemic health crises, and de-globalization, in all of which multinationals are either central to the problem or may offer some solutions. A historical perspective makes clear the reason for this neglect. IB theory and implicit assumptions were shaped during the discipline’s formative period during the 1960s and the 1970s. This has left it excessively focused on the growth of manufacturing multinationals, and with naïve assumptions about the linear and benevolent progress of globalization. This mental toolkit is ill-equipped to understand the present. Engaging deeply with history can also enhance the contextual intelligence of IB. Academy of International Business’s founders barely questioned the positive impact of multinationals, yet historical evidence points to many negative outcomes, and to globalization driving inequality. Understanding how implicit assumptions and biases arose is the first step to re-set IB with research questions and methodologies relevant to a turbulent and de-globalized age.