Search results

The question under the focus is how an MNC manages the increasing demands for corporate social responsibility when entering and expanding in a market. Based on business network, the study develops a view highlighting the four concepts of learning, commitment, legitimacy and trust for studying of socio-political relationships. The view is employed for analysis of the experiences of a Korean MNC's entry into the Chinese market. The case illustrates that the Korean MNC, Samsung Electronics, has behaved proactively by large commitment in several long- and short-term projects towards the society. Besides the theoretical view, the study contributes new knowledge on how the MNC's activities have enabled the firm to transfer learning, commitment, legitimacy and trust from socio-political relationships to business relationships. Further, it adds new knowledge on how corporate social responsibility plays a critical role in a successful entry, thereby building up a stable market position.

Sharp Corporation, established in 1912, has always tried to identify unique niches that its competitors do not enter, while at the same time continuing to pursue innovation and knowledge creation in those niches. The liquid crystal display (LCD) business is a typical example of Sharp's strategy and innovation. Sharp developed the first successful LCD product – a pocket calculator with a small black and white LCD in 1973 – and since then the company has released a series of unique products with LCDs, including PDAs and camcorders. In 1998, in the face of increasing competition in the traditional cathode-ray tube (CRT) TV market, Katsuhiko Machida, the company's new president and strategic leader, announced his vision of upgrading all bulky CRT televisions sold in the domestic market to flat screen LCD sets by 2005. This vision was bold, since Sharp was the first producer of color CRT TVs and its business was still profitable at the time. However, Machida as strategic leader, predicted tough price competition in the CRT business in the future and began to mobilize Sharp's employees to gain and sustain competitive advantage in the new market.

The essay points out a common thread that runs through law-and-economics business law scholarship. Working largely independently of each other, economically oriented scholars working in different areas have argued that the law should focus on the interests of a single constituency – shareholders in corporate law, creditors in bankruptcy law, and consumers in antitrust law. Economic analysts thus have rejected arguments advanced by “progressive” scholars working in each of these areas that the law should instead concern itself with the full range of constituencies affected by business activity. The law-and-economics single constituency claim rests in part on skepticism about judicial competence, but the underlying premise is an objection to the use of law for redistributive purposes. The primary value is efficiency, defined in terms of market-generated outcomes. It is argued here that this political commitment implies a strong tendency toward maintenance of the existing distribution of wealth, and that even more importantly, the single constituency claim may actually have redistributive implications. In each of these areas of business law, however, a regressive program favors owners of capital against those who are generally less well off, such as workers and small-business owners.

Kimberly B. Boal examines what companies and strategic leaders can do to enhance knowledge acquisition, retention, and dissemination. In doing so, he explores how leaders create environments where people throughout the organization utilize both strong and weak network relationships in the pursuit of finding, exploiting, and protecting new knowledge and ideas. Kazuo Ichijo then hones in on how strategic leaders at electronics manufacturer Sharp Corporation developed processes, systems, and structures that allowed the company to build and exploit its knowledge of and competence in LCD technology.

“Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.”

– Warren Buffett

Value pricing can be a successful means to maximize profit by pricing products and services based on their value to end users. Using this approach necessarily means that customers are segmented, with some receiving better prices than others. However, many companies mistakenly believe that U.S. law requires that all customers receive the same price or a “fair and equitable” price, an unrealistically high standard that is a self-imposed roadblock to value-based differentiation.

Not only is the law supportive of segmentation and the economic discrimination that goes with it, but, where resellers are involved, the law also permits value pricing to be facilitated and preserved through the use of non-price vertical restrictions and resale price setting. In addition, price signaling can be a lawful way to avoid sending wrong messages to the marketplace that jeopardize value pricing strategies.

This chapter conceptually addresses outward internationalisation of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) from the emerging markets (EMs) by focussing on the role of prior contract manufacturing relationships with a developed market multinational enterprise (DMNE). The internationalisation of SMEs originating from EMs is a rather under-researched area and the role of prior contract manufacturing experience specifically has not been addressed in prior studies. Based on a literature review, the authors identified four capabilities developed by EM SMEs during their contract manufacturing relationships with DMNE(s) that potentially help in later outward internationalisation. The authors incorporate some insights from dynamic capabilities theory, and develop propositions addressing the role of relational capital, human capital, manufacturing productivity capabilities and product innovation capabilities in this specific context. Despite being conceptual in nature, this chapter is one of the first to explicitly highlight the role of these specific capabilities developed during contract manufacturing relationship for outward internationalisation, setting bases for future studies to further empirically investigate them in different contexts.

A key distinction, mentioned by Dubin (1979, p. 227), is “leadership at a distance.” When Dubin was writing, there was little research on this topic. More recently, however, there has been an upsurge in leadership-at-a-distance work. We see a major review by Antonakis and Atwater (2002), following an earlier one by Napier and Ferris (1993), along with work by authors such as Shamir (1995) and Waldman and Yammarino (1999).