Maturing Strategies of Russian Multinational Companies: Comparisons With Chinese Multinationals

Abstract

International audienceThe present chapter first reminds in which circumstances Russian companies grew multinational and then started booming, and how they were muddling through the financial crisis that burst out in 2008; in this respect, they do not compare too bad with MNCs from other transition countries. The geographical and industrial specificities of their expansion abroad are pointed out as well as the major determinants of their outward foreign direst investment (OFDI). In the past decade, their strategies have evolved from total opacity to more transparency and, in some cases have matured enough to get closer to genuine global strategies while their relationships with the Russian government have strengthened. Thus Russian MNCs make up for major pillars of state capitalism in Russia. A comparative assessment with Chinese MNCs shows deeper similarities than differences in spite of the first mover advantage that has benefited to OFDI from China over OFDI from other transition economies, of which Russia

Mapping the impact of home‐ and host‐country institutions on human resource management in emerging market multinational companies: A conceptual framework

“…Whatever the mechanism of state influence over the economy in developing countries, the “political embeddedness” (Kilduff & Brass, ) of EMNCs in general, and the close ties that they have with the state bureaucracy and politicians (Andreff, ) in particular, give rise to specific forms of institutional conditioning. One shift in this respect in many EMs has been away from protectionist industrial policies toward those that explicitly aim at making national companies successfully compete in global markets (e.g., Trubek, Alviar Garcia, Coutinho, & Santos, ).…”

Multinational Corporations from Emerging Markets

“…The literature on Russian MNCs has converged on a number of issues: geographic and cultural proximity are strong factors in explaining the direction of outward FDI to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Andreff, 2013;Annushkina and Colonel, 2013;Kalotay, 2008;Kalotay and Sulstarova, 2010;Kuznetsov, 2010), whereas the advantages garnered from their natural resource base and oligopolistic or monopolistic advantages in the home market have been used as an explanatory factor for the ability of Russian MNCs to compete globally. Hence, a strong industry bias skewed toward extractive industries has been noted in Russian outward FDI (Annushkina and Colonel, 2013;Kalotay, 2008, p. 102;Mccarthy et al, 2009).…”

“…Looking at the domestic context, there is growing consensus in the literature that Russia's economy today resembles some form of state capitalism (Andreff, 2013;Mccarthy et al, 2009). Assertions that 'market reform succeeded' (Åslund, 2007) in Russia are more political advocacy than a description of reality.…”

“…Second, state promotion might help companies establish a global presence. State actors may be willing to support companies in establishing contacts with foreign states, in gathering intelligence, by giving financial support, or by other means (Andreff, 2013). Third, on the level of motivations, weak institutions and political control also open up new avenues for state actors to use the companies in their own interest, as a quid pro quo for securing property in Russia or in exchange for other favors.…”

“…In the last few years, Russian multinationals have been subject to increasing attention, due to the spectacular growth of Russian foreign direct investment (FDI) during the 2000s, which set a new world record (Andreff, 2013). Efforts at explaining this extraordinary growth focused on separating real FDI (productive activities abroad) from its 'fake' cousins and on trying to adapt theories of multinationalization by introducing home-country variables.…”