Search results

Based on a review of over 450 articles on multinational enterprises published in leading management journals from 1990‐2000, we identified eighteen issues that had engaged the attention of academic scholarship and evaluated their topical relevance. Ironically, very few of them addressed two of the most pressing issues facing business and society at the turn of the last millennium: terrorism and socio‐economic inequality. These glaring omissions suggest a gap between academic scholarship that focuses on “what is,” and research that speculates as to “what could be.” Suggestions are offered on how to close this important gap in the fi eld of international business.

Throughout the industrialised and developing world, corporate policy making and public policy making are converging. Governments are making deliberate and conscious choices about their economies and the forms of industrial organisation that will best accomplish broad social and economic objectives. Senior managers of enterprises face the influence of government policy in creating, shaping, and guiding the development of markets. The issues raised by this reality range well beyond the old regulation/deregulation debates of the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, government and business are more entwined – and more inextricably linked as partners – because of recent global political and economic changes. This article assesses the prospects for the corporation and public policy in the decade ahead.

The chapter explores factors that help define ‘socially responsible value chains’, in which firms create and deliver goods and services that provide social and economic value, but minimize negative externalities, operate in environmentally and socially sustainable ways, and address the concerns of all stakeholders. We use the case method to capture nuances of complex value-chain relationships extending into the unfamiliar territory of emerging markets. We chose three cases, involving Apple, Nike and Nestle, which have become landmarks in corporate responsibility policy and practice. We identify fundamental questions pertaining to social responsibility that arise when firms’ value chains extend across countries and deep into the bottom of the pyramid, and discuss how information gaps, institutional environment and socio-political actors affect outcomes. The chapter provides value by defining the role of governments, inter-governmental organizations, NGOs and managers in creating socially responsible value chains, and laying out specific recommendations.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is presented as a series of evolving stages characterized by shifting attitudes and behaviors by business firms, their stakeholders, and public policies. Five major phases of CSR are described: CSR-1: Corporate Social Trusteeship; CSR-2: Corporate Social Responsiveness; CSR-3 Corporate-Business Ethics; CSR-4: Corporate Global Citizenship; and CSR-5: Toward a Millennial Future. Accompanying the first four CSR phases are the principal drivers and policy instruments that have activated those four CSR stages. An evolving set of generational values and attitudes about CSR — from Silent Generation to Baby Boomers to Gen-Xers to today’s Millennials — reveal the continuing development and relevance of — and the major questions and challenges about — Corporate Social Responsibility in the Millennial future.

Organizations face formidable obstacles to the institutionalization of environmental management programmes. Longitudinal studies show that companies face two major types of barriers to change: industry‐specific barriers, which affect all organizations in a line of business; and organizational barriers, which are not specific to environmental problems, but may impede a company′s capacity to deal with any form of change. Evidence shows that these barriers can be overcome through effective environmental management programmes. Argues that by overcoming these barriers, organizations can move along an environmental performance curve, consisting of phases involving adjustment to regulatory and market realities; adaptation and anticipation of emerging issues; and innovation in achieving economically and environmentally sustainable performance through change programmes involving internal and external elements.

The purpose of this article is exploratory; to evaluate the arguments for “creative capitalism” as a viable market alternative, i.e. corporate governance model, for MNCs in lieu of the capitalist model under which they presently operate.

The paper will first explore the attributes making up the creative capitalism model; second, compare the core attributes of capitalism to Gates' conception of creative capitalism; third, analyze how creative capitalism fits (or does not fit) within the concepts of global corporate citizenship; fourth, present arguments for creative capitalism to be considered as a viable economic opportunity for MNCs and review the latest management strategy frameworks available for implementation; and lastly, summarize the article's major arguments and offer conclusions on the viability of creative capitalism in the global economy.

When compared to the essential components of capitalism and the expansion of government interference in the marketplace, creative capitalism does little more than advocate for national governments to offer financial and related incentives encouraging corporations to develop innovative solutions for alleviating poverty.

For managers, this paper provides insights not emphasizing a “fortune at the bottom of the pyramid”, but profit opportunities available to innovative multinational corporations willing to search for profit opportunities in less developed countries.

This is a seminal, exploratory evaluation of Bill Gates' concept of “creative capitalism” and applies previous researchers' state‐of‐the‐art management frameworks, including the Corporate Citizenship Model and the Strategic CSR Approach, to his proposed governance model.

The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, written by the World Health Organization and joined in by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), was passed by the World Health Assembly in mid‐1981. Intended as a model statute for member nations to adopt, it is now at the centre of a controversy that is both complex and dynamic. This controversy is simultaneously one of humanitarianism, community health, business, and — most of all — law. No doubt most readers are familiar with the heated campaigns of the past few years against infant formula distribution in the Third World. Today the weight of public opinion in most developed countries is with the Code, but that does not necessarily imply ultimate adoption and implementation in other countries. This article attempts, while taking no position on the Code's merits, to examine its possible future. Specifically, (1) Will the Code be adopted and implemented? (2) What is the context in which such decisions will be made?

Not only must multinational corporations deal with governments of their home countries and various host countries, they must now contend with the pressures of change exerted through international organizations such as U.N.‐based agencies and public interest groups. The Nestle infant formula controversy, more so than any other event, has crystallized the growing internationalization of conflicts.

This article reports on the unusual phenomenon of aggressive competition from cottage firms encountered by multinationals and large local firms in the developing‐country environment. It analyses the conditions that enabled cottage firms to compete aggressively in five industries in India, and how large firms dealt with such competition. It discusses how such competition is likely to vary with industry characteristics. It also discusses the implications of such competition for the strategies of multinationals.

Siavash Alimadadi is a PhD candidate at the Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University. His research focuses on the role of knowledge and trust in the internationalization process. His current research examines the impact of socio-political actors on MNCs in Turkey.