Red conceptual en torno a lo transmedia

Over the last ten years it has become commonplace for senior managers of MNCs to describe their organizations as ‘global’ firms. For example, Philip Condit, who became Boeing’s chairman in February 1997, outlined his vision for the future of the company on taking up his position. Boeing, he said, would become less US-focused and instead would be transformed into a ‘global enterprise’ by 2016, its centenary year:

‘I believe we are moving towards an era of global markets and global companies. I think it is advantageous that your workforce, your executive corps, reflect that.’ (Condit, quoted in Financial Times 1997).

Indeed, it has become commonplace for managers and observers to talk about the

‘globalization’ of the firm. It is often asserted that many large MNCs are no longer dependent on their original home base; rather, they are positioned to serve a global market, they respond to the pressures and demands of the global economy and they draw on knowledge and expertise from across the globe. In academic writing on this subject, too, the ‘global’ view of MNCs is also evident, as we saw in Chapter 1. Many MNCs, some argue, have become so internationalized that they have detached them-selves from their home business system.

motivation to engage in FDI was also shaped by changes in the financial system in London.

During the 1980s, institutional shareholders began to put pressure on Unilever to improve the returns to shareholders, and in this context the UAC subsidiary, which had tended to prioritize growth in volume and market share, became subject to rationalization. In 1994, Unilever disposed of any remaining interests it still had in UAC. Though it retained some manufacturing interests in Africa, the region now represented a much smaller proportion of the firm’s overall operations.

Today, the company is often cited as an example of a truly global firm. That is, it is organized to serve markets across the world and has no one country to which it shows any particular allegiance. While such claims are often made about international firms, it does seem as though it is justified in this case. Unilever’s global reach shows up in a number of respects. As we saw above, its ownership and ultimate control does not reside in any one country, while it has operating units in almost 100 countries and sells its products in another 50. Perhaps most significantly, its sales are widely spread across the world: 42 per cent in Europe; 24 per cent in North America; 17 per cent in Asia Pacific; 12 per cent in Latin America; and 5 per cent in Africa and the Middle East.

For further details, see:

Jones, G. (2000) Merchants to Multinationals: British Trading Companies in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unilever website at http://www.unilever.com

Case study question:In what ways has the shifting orientation of Unilever’s operations had implications for the way it manages its international workforce?

IHRM_C03.QXD 11/10/05 4:03 pm Page 58

The best-known exponent of this line of argument has been Ohmae (1990, 1995) in his writing concerning the ‘borderless world’; he argues that the ability of the nation state to regulate and control economic activity has been dramatically reduced by globalization. At the core of this process, according to Ohmae, are ‘global’ corpor-ations that are ‘nationalityless’ and are able to shift to whichever part of the world promises the highest returns. Robert Reich has written in a similar vein. In a famous article in the Harvard Business Review (1991) Reich addressed debates about national competitiveness by posing the question: ‘Who is Us?’ He argues that a country’s com-petitive position is not primarily determined by ‘national’ firms but rather by ‘global’

ones. The performance of the US economy, for instance, is shaped as much by foreign multinationals such as Thomson and Honda as by US firms like General Motors and IBM. In essence, Reich argues that nationality is no longer an important or meaning-ful concept in large MNCs. One interpretation of this apparent development is to see it as the logical consequence of the advantages that a firm accrues from becoming international. The more international the firm becomes, the more powerful it is in relation to domestically based actors such as governments and trade unions. Thus there are strong incentives for firms to become increasingly spread across countries and to sever their ties with their original home base.

However, these developments are by no means universal tendencies; many observers have questioned the extent to which MNCs are global in nature. Reacting to some of the claims reviewed above, a counter-literature emerges. Many writers argue that, far from being detached from their home base, MNCs remain firmly rooted in, and influenced by, their country of origin. Ruigrok and van Tulder (1995), for instance, challenge the ‘myth’ of the global firm. Based on an examination of the largest 100 MNCs in the world, they conclude that ‘not one of these can be dubbed truly global, footloose or borderless. The argument of the globalization of the firm is unfounded and untenable’ (1995: 168). Legrain (2002) argues that firms that are sup-posedly global or stateless are in fact firmly rooted in their home base. Doremus et al.

(1998: 3) argue that MNCs ‘are not converging toward global behavioral norms’ but rather continue to be deeply influenced by their country of origin. Perhaps the best-known exponents of this view are Hirst and Thompson (1999: 95) who also refer to the myth of the global firm, arguing that the ‘home oriented nature of multinational activity across all dimensions seems overwhelming’.

This counter-argument was made on a number of grounds. Principally, statistics concerning the geographic breakdown of the sales, assets and employment of MNCs demonstrate that most MNCs remain heavily concentrated in their home country and in the countries neighbouring it. The way in which MNCs are embedded in their home country shows up in a number of other ways: MNCs are owned largely by shareholders of the country of origin and raise finance predominantly at home; the key strategic functions in MNCs, such as the HQ and R&D facilities, are generally in the home country; and the senior managerial boards of MNCs are still dominated by home country nationals. See Table 3.1.

The world’s top 100 non-financial TNCs, ranked by foreign assets, 2002a (millions of dollars and number of employees) AssetsSalesEmployment ForeignTNIb TNIbassetsTNIbCorporationHome economyIndustrycForeignTotalForeigndTotalForeignTotal(per cent) 4283General ElectricUnited StatesElectrical & electronic equipment229,001575,24445,403131,698150,000315,00040.6 2113Vodafone Group PlceUnited KingdomTelecommunications 207,622f232,87033,63142,31256,66766,66784.5 7785Ford Motor CompanyUnited StatesMotor vehicles165,024f295,22254,472163,420188,453350,32147.7 6315British Petroleum Company PlcUnited KingdomPetroleum expl./ref./distr.126,109159,125145,982180,18697,400116,30081.3 5887General MotorsUnited StatesMotor vehicles107,926f370,78248,071186,763101,000350,00027.9 5948Royal Dutch/Shell GroupgUnited Kingdom/NetherlandsPetroleum expl./ref./distr.94,402f145,392114,294179,43165,000111,00062.4 31247Toyota Motor CorporationJapanMotor vehicles79,433f167,27072,820127,11385,057264,09645.7 21021Total Fina ElfFrancePetroleum expl./ref./distr.79,032f89,45077,46196,99368,554121,46974.9 5––France TelecomFranceTelecommunications73,454h111,73518,18744,107102,016243,57349.6 41639ExxonMobil CorporationUnited StatesPetroleum expl./ref./distr.60,80294,940141,274200,94956,000I92,00065.1 531551Volkswagen GroupGermanyMotor vehicles57,133f114,15659,66282,244157,887324,89257.1 862086E.OnGermanyElectricity, gas and water52,294f118,52613,10435,05442,063107,85640.2 782281RWE GroupGermanyElectricity, gas and water50,699105,11617,62244,11055,563131,76543.4 40436Vivendi UniversalFranceMedia49,667f72,68230,04155,00445,77261,81565.7 501657ChevronTexaco Corp.United StatesPetroleum expl./ref./distr.48,48977,35955,08798,69137,03866,03858.2 291738Hutchison Whampoa LimitedHong Kong, ChinaDiversified48,01463,2848,08814,247124,942154,81371.1 46––Siemens AGGermanyElectrical & electronic equipment47,511f76,47450,72477,244251,340426,00062.3 943091Electricité de FranceFranceElectricity, gas and water47,385151,83512,55245,74350,437171,99529.3 661363Fiat SpaItalyMotor vehicles46,15096,99024,56052,63898,703186,49249.1 311944Honda Motor Co. LtdJapanMotor vehicles43,641f63,75549,16765,36642,88563,31070.5 91811News CorporationAustraliaMedia40,33145,21416,02817,42131,220j35,00090.1 6395Roche GroupSwitzerlandPharmaceuticals40,15246,16018,829I19,17361,09069,65991.0 191118SuezFranceElectricity, gas and water38,73944,80534,16543,596138,200198,75078.1 582760BMW AGGermanyMotor vehicles37,60458,19230,21139,99520,12096,26353.7 642675Eni GroupItalyPetroleum expl./ref./distr.36,991f68,98722,82045,32936,97380,65549.9 482120Nestlé SAgSwitzerlandFood & beverages36,145f63,00734,87057,508150,232254,19959.0 983597DaimlerChrysler AgiGermany/United StatesMotor vehicles35,778f196,37546,137141,49172,560365,57123.6 631452Telefonica SASpainTelecommunications35,72071,32711,28626,87488,401152,84550.0 622365IBMUnited StatesElectrical & electronic equipment34,951f96,48448,42781,186178,602i315,88950.8 92––ConocoPhillipsUnited StatesPetroleum expl./ref./distr.32,094f76,83610,07456,74823,934j57,30033.8 993495Wal-Mart StoresUnited StatesRetail30,70994,68540,794244,524300,0001,400,00023.5 523253Sony CorporationJapanElectrical & electronic equipment29,821f69,47642,85861,28494,000161,10057.1 442945Carrefour SAFranceRetail28,594f40,80431,80965,011271,031j386,76263.0 706061Hewlett-PackardUnited StatesElectrical & electronic equipment28,247f70,71033,28656,58856,326j141,00046.2 5243ABBSwitzerlandMachinery and equipment28,155I29,53317,144i18,295131,321i139,05194.5 422535UnilevergUnited Kingdom/NetherlandsDiversified27,937f46,75227,61446,122193,000258,00064.8 10287Philips ElectronicsNetherlandsElectrical & electronic equipment27,88033,84928,67330,099140,827170,08786.8 34––NovartisSwitzerlandPharmaceuticals25,874f45,58820,58820,90640,28272,87770.2 393340Aventis SAFrancePharmaceuticals23,753f32,57414,76719,50637,802g78,09965.7 101––AOL Time Warner IncUnited StatesMedia23,476h115,4508,32940,96118,55591,25020.3 723169Repsol YPF SASpainPetroleum expl./ref./distr.23,12139,90211,30334,51614,07230,11045.8 323824AES CorporationUnited StatesElectricity, gas and water22,784f33,7766,5428,63224,284j36,00070.2 904196Deutsche Post World NetGermanyTransport and storage22,782h170,50321,82037,131108,609327,67635.1 574054BASF AGGermanyChemicals22,69436,78117,87830,47339,07889,39854.7 83––EndesaSpainElectricity, gas and water22,46050,5035,52816,30512,33426,35441.7 306625Anglo AmericangUnited KingdomMining & quarrying22,45033,58112,82120,497147,000177,00070.8 334527Compagnie De Saint-Gobain SAFranceConstruction materials22,36131,60419,70828,636122,373172,35770.2 934990Philip Morris Companies IncUnited StatesDiversified21,513f87,54035,68380,40840,795j166,00031.2 685268Pfizer IncUnited StatesPharmaceuticals21,161f46,35611,61132,37372,000i120,00047.2 857294Mitsui & Co LtdJapanWholesale trade21,020f54,28646,979108,54114,611j37,73440.2 214433Royal Ahold NVgNetherlandsRetail20,59825,93346,34359,293236,698341,90975.6 595873Procter & GambleUnited StatesDiversified20,28243,70621,52443,37761,200i98,00052.8 977798Hitachi LtdJapanElectrical & electronic equipment20,189h84,48915,58967,17283,478i339,57223.9 364329GlaxoSmithKline PlcUnited KingdomPharmaceuticals19,992f35,82129,32031,89958,471g104,49967.9 565159Pinault-Printemps Redoute SAFranceRetail19,240f31,47413,93625,89453,871108,42354.9 104582Deutsche Telekom AGGermanyTelecommunications19,172h120,58930924,39778,146255,96915.9

IHRM_C03.QXD 11/10/05 4:03 pm Page 60

Continued AssetsSalesEmployment ForeignTNI TNIbassetsTNIbCorporationHome economyIndustrycForeignTotalForeigndTotalForeignTotal(per cent) 244710Diageo PlcUnited KingdomBeverages18,526f26,72912,63714,97126,999j38,955 2552Thomson CorporationCanadaMedia18,12518,5427,7357,91541,300i42,000 754258Bayer AGGermanyPharmaceuticals/chemicals17,95743,70614,92328,02152,000122,600 696774Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., LtdJapanElectrical & electronic equipment17,941f65,02832,37360,694166,873288,324 3714Holcim AGSwitzerlandConstruction materials17,49918,3647,8758,39149,76551,115 256522Volvo GroupSwedenMotor vehicles17,44127,36717,982m19,23445,74071,160 877076Renault SAFranceMotor vehicles17,441f55,79921,20634,37035,351i132,351 617366Dow Chemical Company iUnited StatesChemicals17,38639,56216,35027,60924,72549,959 275932Coca-Cola Company nUnited StatesBeverages17,379f24,50113,08919,35345,10056,000 1006488Mitsubishi CorporationJapanWholesale trade17,28567,21315,613109,29612,182j47,370 102––Telecom ItaliaItalyTelecommunications17,251h84,9466,69332,95721,653k106,620 805028National Grid TranscoUnited KingdomEnergy16,54135,5746,16913,4739,97527,308 269441Lvmh Moët-Hennessy Louis Vuitton SAFranceLuxury goods16,409f22,4519,96512,00633,99653,812 476837Singtel Ltd.SingaporeTelecommunications15,775f19,0713,2475,8019,87721,716 389234British American Tobacco GroupUnited KingdomTobacco15,592f26,12925,041m37,11760,10785,819 157814Astrazeneca PlcUnited KingdomPharmaceuticals14,796f21,57616,96917,84146,80057,500 288223NokiaFinlandMachinery and equipment14,528f24,45428,05828,39230,09952,714 10595100Verizon CommunicationsUnited StatesTelecommunications14,239f167,4683,26967,62519,513229,497 438043BertelsmannGermanyMedia14,108i23,26011,93817,32148,92080,632 517949McDonald’s CorporationUnited StatesRestaurant13,77123,9718,95115,406237,269j413,000 234626BHP Billiton GroupAustraliaMining & quarrying13,753f20,57815,73117,50623,259j34,801 145612Nortel NetworksCanadaMachinery and equipment13,39815,9719,88510,56026,82036,960 377517Stora Enso OY jFinlandPaper13,12719,0948,16512,09129,17743,853 816978Du Pont (E.I.) De NemoursUnited StatesChemicals13,040f34,62112,584p24,00629,755j79,000 607667Scottish PowerUnited KingdomElectric utilities12,97119,9033,9927,5596,26815,490 1611NTL IncUnited StatesTelecommunications12,862f13,0413,2653,26514,922j15,130 918884Johnson & JohnsonUnited StatesPharmaceuticals12,814f40,55613,84336,29834,218j108,300 767471Thyssenkrupp AGGermanyMetal and metal products12,783f30,57415,48533,74088,404191,254 495742AlcatelFranceMachinery and equipment12,68827,1309,96315,65250,55975,940 103––Duke Energy CorporationUnited StatesElectricity, gas and water12,24749,1132,18115,6634,40022,000 358130Cemex S.A.MexicoConstruction materials12,193f16,0444,3667,03617,56826,752 82––Canadian National Railway CompanyCanadaTransportation12,05021,7382,3846,1106,87922,114 71––Metro AGGermanyRetail11,821f24,03022,54648,73884,825196,462 178319Reed ElsevierUnited Kingdom/NetherlandsPublishing and printing11,72714,0425,7437,54927,30036,100 18––Alcan Inc.CanadaMetal and metal products11,678f17,53811,54112,54038,00050,000 969092Merck & CoUnited StatesPharmaceuticals11,388f47,5618,30051,80028,60077,300 88––Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Republic of KoreaElectrical & electronic equipment11,38851,96428,29847,65528,300i82,400 208616Danone Groupe SAFranceFood & beverages11,31316,2389,48612,82279,94592,209 779679AlcoaUnited StatesMetal and metal products11,109f29,8107,37920,26373,500127,000 799380Abbott LaboratoriesUnited StatesPharmaceuticals11,07324,2596,68717,68533,000i71,819 8––Publicis Groupe SAFranceBusiness services11,021f11,5082,4072,76831,87135,681 7––Interbrew SAqBelgiumBeverages10,665f11,6846,0006,61431,682i35,044 4––CRH PlcIrelandLumber and other building materials dealers10,596f11,0669,53510,21047,33549,889 745362Motorola IncUnited StatesMachinery and equipment10,433f31,15218,16937,62153,35097,000 UNCTAD/Erasmus University database (see UN 2004) wise stated. ransnationality Index’, is calculated as the average of the following three ratios: foreign asset to total assets, foreign sales y classification for companies follows the United States Standard Industrial Classification as used by the United States wise stated. o the ave been sent iData were obtained from the company as a response to an UNCTAD survey. jForeign employment data are calculated by applying the share of both foreign assets in total assets and foreign sales in total to total employment. kForeign employment data are calculated by applying the share of foreign assets in total assets to total employment. lData for outside Germany and the United States. mIn a number of cases companies reported only partial region-specified sales. In these cases, the ratio of the partial foreign sales to the partial (total) sales was applied to total sales to calculate the total foreign sales. In all cases, the resulting figures have been sent for confirmation to the companies. nData for outside North America. oData for outside the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. pForeign sales are based on customer location. qData for outside Western Europe. Note:The list includes non-financial TNCs only. In some companies, foreign investors may hold a minority share of more than 10 per cent.

Part 1 • The context for international HRM

This alternative view throws doubt on the extent to which firms will automatically realize benefits by spreading their wings further and further afield. Indeed, it suggests that MNCs tend to retain strong linkages with their country of origin and therefore continue to be influenced by the business system in this country to a greater extent than any other system. Moreover, it also suggests that in making foreign investments, multinationals favour locations which are near to their home country and only grad-ually reach out to countries further afield. One explanation for this is that offered by the ‘Uppsala’ model. Developed by academics at the University of Uppsala, the basic idea behind the model is that the internationalization of the firm is a gradual process that arises from a series of incremental decisions rather than a few grand leaps for-ward. This is because firms lack the knowledge and resources about operating in other business systems due to the ‘psychic distance’ between countries, which is defined as the ‘factors preventing or disturbing the flows of information between firms and markets’ (Johansson and Wiedersheim-Paul 1975). As firms gradually acquire knowledge about other systems they begin to enter new markets, initially through exporting via an independent representative, then through a sales subsidiary and finally through a full production facility. Crucially, psychic distance is highly correlated with geographic distance; while there are exceptions, generally speaking the business systems that are close to one another tend to have stronger commonali-ties in terms of the nature of the dominant institutions than those that are far apart.

Thus this provides an explanation for why MNCs tend to hold the majority of their foreign investments in countries that neighbour their original base.

This picture of gradual internationalization fits the evidence. The UN has for many years published data on the extent to which the largest 100 MNCs in the world are internationalized. Combining the ratios of foreign sales to total sales, foreign assets to total assets and foreign employment to total employment, a ‘Transnationality Index’

(TNI) is constructed in an attempt to measure the degree to which these firms are concentrated in their home country. During the 1990s the TNI has risen slowly but steadily, from 51 in 1990 to 57 in 2002 (UN 2004). A different approach has been to measure the degree of financial internationalization. Hassel et al. (2003) have devel-oped an index which captures three aspects of the ownership and control of firms:

the extent of foreign shareholdings; the number of listings on foreign stock markets;

and the adoption of international accounting standards. Applying this measure in Germany, they found great variability in the extent to which German MNCs have an internationalized ownership and accounting structure. While they do not produce time series data, it is highly likely that those MNCs that are the most international-ized in this respect, such as Bayer, Deutsche Telekom and Siemens, have become more internationalized in recent years.

Conclusion

This chapter has considered the process through which firms expand into different countries. It has contrasted various explanations for why firms internationalize, examining the role of access to, and control over, factors of production, the evolution IHRM_C03.QXD 11/10/05 4:03 pm Page 62

of products, access to markets that would be difficult to serve through exporting, and the exploitation of a source of efficiency that is unique to the firm. The most widely used model that integrates various approaches – Dunning’s eclectic paradigm – was then reviewed and a critique was provided. One key criticism of the paradigm is that it plays down the advantages from being multinational, suggesting that MNCs have a strong incentive to become genuinely globally spread. In fact, relatively few MNCs are global in orientation, partly because they have only partial knowledge about, and understanding of, business systems in different countries and consequently they tend to expand incrementally.

Some of the issues discussed here raise further questions. For instance, given the diversity of business systems in which MNCs operate, how do they organize themselves to manage units across these systems? Another important question relates to the trans-fer of expertise. As we have seen, deploying knowledge and expertise that is firm-specific can constitute one source of competitive advantage, so how is this trans-ferred? Furthermore, in relation to the growing internationalization of the firm, the principal channel through which many MNCs increased their international spread in the late 1990s was through cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Such deals have very important HR implications. These issues are tackled in turn in the next three chapters.

Further reading

Dicken, P. (2003) Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, London: Sage, Chapter 7.

This chapter contains a concise summary of many theories of internationalization including a useful account of Dunning’s eclectic paradigm.

Johansson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975) ‘The Internationalisation of the Firm: Four Swedish Cases’, Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–22.

This is the classic exposition of the Uppsala model that focuses on the way that firms expand into new countries in a series of incremental steps as they acquire new knowl-edge. It is also useful for Chapter 8 on knowledge management.

1 What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the narrow and broad definitions of MNCs?

2 What are the limitations of the ‘new international division of labour’ as a device for explaining why companies internationalize?

3 Why do firms ‘internalize’ a competitive advantage and what are the implications of doing so for their role as employers?

4 Do you think that the next ten years will witness the emergence of genuinely

‘global’ firms?

Review questions

Part 1 • The context for international HRM

Marginson, P. (1994) ‘Multinational Britain: Employment and Work in an Internationalised Economy’, Human Resource Management Journal, 4(4), 63–80.

This article explores the various motivations for firms to expand overseas and links each of these to the implications of their approach as employers. The analysis is located in a discussion of the UK context.

UN (United Nations) (2004) World Investment Report: The Shift Towards Services, New York: UN.

The UN’s World Investment Report is the most authoritative site for information on the scale of the operations controlled by MNCs. It is very useful for reference purposes.

References

Buckley, P. and Casson, M. (1976) The Future of the Multinational Enterprise, London:

Macmillan.

Coase, R. (1937) ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica, 4, 386–405.

Corley, T. (1994) ‘Britain’s Overseas Investments in 1914 Revisited’, Business History, 36(1), 71–88.

Cowling, K. and Sugden, R. (1987) Transnational Monopoly Capitalism, Brighton:

Wheatsheaf.

Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Dicken, P. (2003) Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, London: Sage.

Doremus, P., Keller, W., Pauly, L. and Reich, S. (1998) The Myth of the Global Corporation, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dunning, J. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Ferner, A. (1997) ‘Multinationals, “Relocation”, and Employment in Europe’ in J. Gual (ed.) Job Creation: The Role of Labour Market Institutions, London: Edward Elgar.

Financial Times (1997) ‘Management: Flight Plan from Seattle: Philip Condit tells Michael Skapinker how he hopes to turn Boeing into a Global Company over 20 Years’, 12 March.

Freeman, R. (1995) ‘Does Globalization Threaten Low-Skilled Western Workers?’ in J.

Philpott (ed.) Working for Full Employment, London: Routledge.

Frobel, F., Heinrichs, J. and Kreye, O. (1980) The New International Division of Labour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gereffi, G. (1999) ‘International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chain’, Journal of International Economics, 48, 37–70.

Guardian (2002) ‘New Balls Please’, 24 June.

Hassel, A., Hopner, M., Kurdelbusch, A., Rehder, B. and Zugehor, R. (2003) ‘Two Dimensions of the Internationalization of Firms’, Journal of Management Studies, 40(3), 705–23.

Hirst, P. and Thompson, P. (1999) Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hymer, S. (1976) The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Foreign Direct Investment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johansson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975) ‘The Internationalisation of the Firm: Four Swedish Cases’, Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–22.

IHRM_C03.QXD 11/10/05 4:03 pm Page 64

John, R., Ietto-Gillies, G., Cox, H. and Grimwade, N. (1997) Global Business Strategy, London: Thompson.

Jones, G. (2000) Merchants to Multinationals: British Trading Companies in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaplinsky, R. (2000) ‘Spreading the Gains from Globalisation: What Can Be Learned From Value Chain Analysis’, IDS Working Paper No. 110, available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/

ids/bookshop/wp/wp110.pdf

Legrain, P. (2002) Open World: The Truth about Globalisation, London: Abacus.

Marginson, P. (1994) ‘Multinational Britain: Employment and Work in an Internationalised Economy’, Human Resource Management Journal, 4(4) 63–80.

Mintzberg, H. (1987) ‘Crafting Strategy’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, 65–75.

Ohmae, K. (1990) The Borderless World, London: Collins.

Ohmae, K. (ed.) (1995) The Evolving Global Economy: Making Sense of the New World Order, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1992) The Japanization of British Industry: New Developments in the 1990s, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Oman, C. (1994) Globalisation and Regionalisation: the Challenge for Developing Countries, Paris: OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

Reich, R. (1991) ‘Who is Us?’, Harvard Business Review, January–February, 53–64.

Royle, T. (2000) Working for McDonald’s in Europe, London: Routledge.

Rugman, A. (1981) Inside the Multinationals, London: Croom Helm.

Ruigrok, W. and van Tulder, R. (1995) The Logic of International Restructuring, London:

Routledge.

UN (United Nations) (2004) World Investment Report: The Shift Towards Services, New York:

UN.

Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207.

Vernon, R. (1974) ‘The Location of Economic Activity’ in J. Dunning (ed) Economic Analysis and the Multinational Enterprise, London: Allen & Unwin.

Williamson, O. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies, New York: Free Press.

Chapter 4

International strategy and structure in