What can Businesses do to Appease Anti‐Globalization Protestors?

Oestreich, Joel E.

doi:10.1111/1467-8594.00133

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Populist movements and leaders have largely focused on inequality and those left behind by globalization, but also on new technologies, as low skilled workers in advanced economies have increasingly become redundant due to automation, outsourcing and offshoring (Oestreich, 2002). These sentiments were evident in the emergence of populist political leaders around the world, from Brazil to the Philippines, including the 2018 Italian election that resulted in the first populist government of a large European Union (EU) member state.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open for business in a closed world? Managing MNE nonmarket strategy in times of populism and geopolitical uncertainty

White¹,

Rajwani

Lawton

2021

MBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to consider how multinational enterprises are increasingly augmenting their international strategies with insights on, and approaches to, external stakeholders and nonmarket dynamics. The rise of populism and increased geopolitical uncertainty have accelerated these efforts, particularly for business leaders anticipating and engaging external agents, events, and issues that challenge the strategic objectives of their enterprises. Design/methodology/approach This paper aims to explain why the increased preponderance of populism and geopolitical uncertainty are simultaneously posing an existential threat to the post-Cold War global economy predicated on free trade and (relatively) open borders, and consequently, challenging the structures and strategies of international business. Findings We provide an overview of the four papers in our special issue, and consider how each advances insights on how multinational enterprises effectively navigate the nonmarket uncertainties of the contemporary global economy. We then advance four important areas for international business research around multinational nonmarket strategies: (i) resilience and legitimacy; (ii), diversification; (iii), market and nonmarket strategy integration; and (iv), institutional arbitrage. Research limitations/implications We anticipate that nonmarket strategy scholars can build on these themes to assess how nonmarket strategies can better enable multinational enterprises to survive and thrive in an age of heightened global risk and uncertainty. Originality/value This paper and the related special issue provide new theoretical insights by bringing attention to the relatively under-researched realm of multinational enterprise nonmarket strategy, particularly in populist contexts and during periods of geopolitical uncertainty. We identify four promising domains – resilience and legitimacy, diversification, the integration of market and nonmarket strategy, and institutional arbitrage – for international business scholars investigating nonmarket strategy to consider. We hope that our paper, as well as other papers in this special issue, provide further momentum to this growing area of research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open for business in a closed world? Managing MNE nonmarket strategy in times of populism and geopolitical uncertainty

White¹,

Rajwani

Lawton

2021

MBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is an epistemological principle at work here: the ethics of economics can only be understood from the perspective of the poor. 23 The option for the poor , as it is called, is to understand ethics from the vantage point of the poor. The ethical responsibility of business is not simply to make a profit (as in the shareholder perspective), nor simply to ensure that all stakeholders are fairly dealt with (the stakeholder position), but to examine and critique business decisions and economic situations from the perspective of how those decisions and situations affect the poor who may not be part of the transaction or are powerless to change the situation, and, therefore, not stakeholders.…”

Section: Moral Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Proposed Perspectives of Attitude Toward Business’ Ethical Responsibilities and Their Implications for Cultural Comparison

Schepers

2006

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture and ethical decision making in business have been related both theoretically and empirically for a number of years. At the individual level, two models 1 of ethical decision making that have been developed have posited culture as an exogenous variable affecting the individual decision maker's judgment. Both models proposed that culture would affect judgment through its impact on an individual's awareness and reasoning processes, while Hunt and Vitell further proposed that the situational outcomes would affect intention formation.Hofstede 2 researched four aspects of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. His most recent work 3 has included a fifth aspect: long-versus short-term orientation. In an empirical analysis of the linkage between Hofstede's dimensions and ethical sensitivity toward stakeholders (i.e., the amount of ethical concern directed toward particular stakeholders), Blodgett, Lu, Rose, and Vitell 4 found that uncertainty avoidance had a positive effect on ethical sensitivity, and power distance and individualism/masculinity had a negative effect on it.

show abstract

“…Despite considerable research on EMNCs' internationalization into developed economies (Makino et al, 2002;Mathews, 2006), we have a limited understanding of EMNCs' market and nonmarket strategy in light of the recent changing landscape of the political economy in the global business environment (Lawton and Rajwani, 2011;Li et al, 2017;Rodriguez et al, 2006;White et al, 2020). The anti-globalization sentiment in developed markets (Oestreich, 2002) reflects a global business world where cross-border transactions are challenged by rising nationalism and political hostilities (El-Erian, 2010;Meyer, 2017). Bearing an additional layer of country-of-origin liabilities, EMNCs have to navigate the increasing uncertainty derived from political animosity, defined as misaligned national interests between the home emerging economy and the host developed economy (Klein et al, 1998;Nes et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political animosity in cross-border acquisitions: EMNCs’ market and nonmarket strategy in a developed market

Liou

Brown²,

Hasija

2021

MBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Many multinational corporations that originate from emerging economies (emerging market multinational corporations (EMNCs)) opt for acquiring a target firm in a developed market to expediently upgrade their strategic capabilities. To successfully achieve their strategic goals in the developed markets, EMNCs may use market actions and nonmarket actions to mitigate the potential risk derived from the national political differences between their home emerging economy and host developed economy. This paper aims to extend the legitimacy-based view of political risk to study the influence of political animosity – defined as misalignment of the host-home countries’ national interests – on the EMNCs’ market and nonmarket strategy in a developed market. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, we examine all EMNCs that made cross-border acquisitions of the USA targets from 2005 to 2011. The final sample consists of 252 acquisitions originating from 25 emerging markets. This paper used Tobit regression analysis to test the direct and moderating hypotheses. Findings Facing a high level of political animosity between their home country and the host developed economy, EMNCs use a market strategy by acquiring less ownership stake in the developed market, as well as engage in a nonmarket strategy by increasing lobbying activities. In addition, because of the heightened legitimacy concerns of developed market shareholders, cross-listed EMNCs have a greater tendency than non-cross-listed EMNCs to improve their legitimacy through their market and nonmarket strategy. Originality/value The current paper sheds light on EMNCs’ international strategy in developed markets by examining both market and nonmarket actions. EMNCs are shown to be strongly motivated to engage in acquisitions in developed markets so they can acquire invaluable strategic resources, such as brands and distribution channels, to compete with the developed market multinationals. A sophisticated ownership strategy and corporate political activities are invaluable for EMNCs to catch up with developed market multinationals.

show abstract

What can Businesses do to Appease Anti‐Globalization Protestors?

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Open for business in a closed world? Managing MNE nonmarket strategy in times of populism and geopolitical uncertainty

Open for business in a closed world? Managing MNE nonmarket strategy in times of populism and geopolitical uncertainty

Three Proposed Perspectives of Attitude Toward Business’ Ethical Responsibilities and Their Implications for Cultural Comparison

Political animosity in cross-border acquisitions: EMNCs’ market and nonmarket strategy in a developed market

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About