Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The evolution of multinational corporations
The evolution of multinational corporations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The evolution of multinational corporations
Why ICI Chose to Demerge Under what conditions could ICI have avoided a split up? The long existing and successful company, ICI, faced a serious crisis during the eighties, due to a large mismatch between its corporate strategy and the needs of its individual businesses. Only the beginning of the next decade would bring relief: ICI decided to demerge into two separate firms, Zeneca and the new ICI. This huge decision could have been avoided under the following conditions. First of all, this large multinational tended to look inward, not outward. Hostage to its legacy, ICI's policy was dominated by consensual decision making which retarded the procedures, tradition and emotional ties. Even though a series of changes were implemented during the eighties, ICI kept overlooking external conditions like fast growing and developing technologies and changing market and competition tendencies. A more open, aware corporate policy could have weakened the call for break-up. Secondly, the ICI demerger could have been avoided if the company had not been so ambitious. Being the dominant producer in its home market, ICI became too big and overdiversified. It pushed its limits oversees since the domestic market was saturated. This large international expansion proved to be incompatible with the persisting wish to control and coordinate all divisions to the same extent. To avoid the 1993 demerger, the focus should have been less on size and global scale and more on internal linkages and synergies and on the shareholders' needs, which were overlooked in the 60's and 70's. Would it only have focused on its most successful and cost advantageous products, and not try to maintain a varied full-line production on numerous geographic fronts, the ICI headquarters could have reacted earlier, faster and more quickly on events. Finally, the ICI demerger pre-empted the possible bid by Hanson Industries to take over ICI. The fact that ICI restructured on its own volition made the company a far less tempting target, since the company was able to realize the kinds of values that a raider would look to achieve. Thus, the threat of takeover forced ICI to split itself into two smaller, leaner, more competitive companies. How can companies find out that they need to redraw their corporate scope? From the moment the balance between corporate control and diversification goals gets disrupted, the company better redraws its corporate scope or at least parts of it. When one notices that the managers of the corporate firm abuse their
The second part, “Why It Happened: Eighty-Five Years,” explains the origins of the firm and its founding and operating principles, and it sets the basics for why several deviations from these founding principles eventually led the firm astray.
But divesture of three out of four divisions leads to a very small portfolio which leads to chances of high risks as well. The process of restructuring and forming a better portfolio would provide the firm with a lot many opportunities including exploring newer and more compatible product lines and segments, thus increasing its opportunities to earn better revenues with efficient management.
Gaughan, P. A., 2002. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate restructuring. 3rd ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Both the plastics and chemical groups were acquired for the sole purpose of diversifying the company. Mr. Wallace thought if he added these two new divisions, he would be able to bring new life to the company.
...ative aspects of diversification, for example through better corporate planning, human recourse management and reaching further synergies between its various business lines.
Other possibly meaningful factors that cannot be forgotten include: higher yields (due to process quality and use of more efficient, larger silicon wafers), use of common core design for different products supported by the flexibility of production lines (which enabled cost-efficient production of a wide variety of different semiconductors), and – reportedly – 12 per cent lower investment in capital assets related to the aforementioned strategic decision on fab collocation.
Each division’s performance had been judged on the basis of its profit and return on investment for several years. The said practice creates competition among the company’s divisions because each makes sure that it is more profitable than the others. As such was the case, there was high possibility that one division was enjoying profit at the expense of the other(s).
the company can attempt to reduce the impact with a better defined strategy. Many firm-specific issues can
Ensign PC 2004, ‘A resource based view of interrelationships among organizational groups in the diversified firms’, Strategic Change, Vol. 13. pp. 125-137.
...th management to determine whether to spin off or integrate, and make a clear move toward that choice. Whichever the choice, the decision must be made, and management must be aware that regardless of their personal feelings, they must communicate it to everyone in their department.
He had a keen interest in working in the Pacific Rim for which he was eventually rewarded a position of Chairman on Board (COB) at the Factory in China. What we noticed is that due to Control's relative inexperience and lack of understanding of joint venture, James was recalled only after completing one third of his contract length, to be replaced by a relatively inexperienced employee from Singapore (Jimmy Chao). Controls Asia Pacific, in doing so, ignored the fact that they might threaten the success of the joint venture. This case shall try and analyze what factors may have caused this pull out to occur, what may be its consequences, and what we feel should be done, in order to reinstate trust and confidence to make the joint venture a success. Adaptation, Acceptance and Experience.
BR was sold to Delta Foods in 1996 for US $2 billion. At this time, it was one of the largest fast-food chains in the world generating sales of US $6.8 billion. DF purchase of BR brought in a new cultural paradigm. DF is an individualistic, aggressive growth company with brands they believe are strong enough to support entry into new overseas markets without the need for local partnership. The DF strategy is one of direct acquisition and JV’s were not part of their strong suit. DF strategic implementation is based on hiring local managers directly or transferring seasoned managers from their soft drink and snack food divisions. The DF disdain for JVs is clearly reflected by their participation in only those JVs where local partnering was mandatory (e.g. China) to overcome regulatory barriers to entry. JVs had been the predominant strategy for BR which was unlike the DF outlook. Terralumen’s strategy was misaligned and out of sync with the DF strategy. This was unlike the complementarity that existed with BR’s strategy. This misalignment began to affect the JV relationship that had worked well with BR in the initial years. The failure of Terralumen and DF to recognize this fundamental cultural difference between their operational strategy styles i.e. Individualistic and Collectivism leads to their inability to proactively create steps for better alignment in the early period after acquisition, creating uncertainties and difficulties for both corporations. There is a lack of communication and virtually absence of trust between two new partners. DF appeared to be flexing its muscles in the relationship and using a more masculine approach compared to Terralumen’s more feminine approach. Both the corporations are strategically involved in a complex situation where they appear reluctant to address the issues at stake and move ahead together. The DF strategy of
Gilpin discussed the MNC’s evolution through the lenses of a number of business economic theories. Using Raymond Vernon’s Product Cycle Theory, the overseas expansion of American companies until the 1960s was shown as a means of preempting foreign competition and preserving monopoly positions, which was possible then because of the wealth and technology gaps that existed between the US and the rest of the world (282-83). Following the closing of such gaps, Dunning and the Reading School’s Eclectic Theory explained the next stage of the MNC’s evolution as propelled by the great leaps made in technology and communication, which made internationalized management both possible and viable (283). Michael Porter’s Strategy Theory, meanwhile, asserted that the MNC is now in the era of strategic management, wherein activities and capabilities spanning borders allow it to “tap into the value chain” in the most advantageous positions (285-85). Gilpin made an interesting point, however, that MNCs are oftentimes the result of market imperfections and unique corporate situations. In many instances, the decision to expand a firm’s operations in another country was a means of circumventing protectionist measures and trade barriers, or simply to curry favor with governments, as practiced by IBM (280...
How does this case illustrate the threats and opportunities facing global companies in developing their strategies?
Diversification is where a company grows into new business areas either similar to existing business or different from existing business allowing a firm to create value by creatively using excess resources. Seprod operates in a number of different and distinctive product markets and several businesses using corporate-level strategy. Seprod operates in the fats and oil business, milk and juice and the sugar industry