h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: MultiNational Corporations - A3348425
Author: Vice-Mistress Kat (scouting for you) - visit the Language Thing at A1145477 - U234368

A3348425 - Multinational Corporations
U234368- Writer= Kat


Okay...I've strapped on my cushions and goggles, I'm ready to have it ripped to shreds.

I liked this.

As a corporate lackie in an MEDC I tended to see the negative side of globalsing manufacture, but on the whole a well balanced report.

Are MNC's good? Personally I don't think it's the MNC per se that's good or bad but the effect they can have in a less "industrially sophisticated" country. You have alluded to this but the title of the paragraph suggests it's the MNC that is deliberately causing damage when in most cases it's the Government of the affected country, desperate to attract foreign investment, who fail to maintain the most basic health & safety or environmental standards to reduce overheads to the MNC.

The social impacts you mention are a short term advantage at best. China is a perfect example of this with respect to Pharmaceutical manufacture. At present China is grossly undercutting manufacturing costs of some out of patent drugs. However, the FDA have restricted their licenses since the most basic standards for aseptic manufacture are not always adhered to. In addition, as the workforce becomes more aware and education standards improve, they demand higher wages. This linked to the realisation that more investment of profits in safety is required quickly removes the competitive advantage.

In the case of Pharmaceuticals we are seeing this "closing the gap" happening faster.

The question arising from this then is should the MNC's drive for profit over rule the obvious social and environmental implications of not manufacturing under the same standards in the LEDC's as in the MEDC's. Should there be moral and ethical pressure on the MNC's to ensure that safety and environmental issues are addressed even at the expense of some of their indecently high profits?

Having said this I should also own up that I'm probably being fairly self centred here... Any legislation that makes the MNC think twice about moving manufacture out of Britain only secures my job!

Great choice of subject. I think this is likely to be a very useful Entry when people want to find facts to use in discussion, etc. What bothers me about it is that with all the lists and tables, it's a bit... Spartan; it reminds me of lecture handouts or revision guides, which are designed for people whose knowledge & understanding get fleshed out in other ways. Any external links/recommended reading you could suggest? Maybe the Case Studies section could be expanded and linked more closely to 'Are MNCs Good?' to give examples, e.g. of an MNC pulling out of a country. That might give more of a 'real world' sense, and an idea of why globalisation is such a hot political topic. Then again, I'm not an economist; maybe that's not what you were trying to achieve.

I'll have a look at adding some external links, and see what I can do about linking the case studies to whether the MNCs are good. The Fiat one does show good things for the country, maybe I should make that more obvious?
I know it looks rather like a lecture hand out. Im not sure how to...cheer it up...suggestions?

I've addressed the first suggestions and altered things slightly. There's now a bit at the bottom about moral and ethical issues and an example, and...erm...in the MNCs are Good? bit I've added that its the government who lower the standards.

You're right; cheering up the 'dismal science' does look problematic. Um...

Links added....there's some exciting stuff out there! Real emotion!


However...the boringness of it....ermmm *scratches head*

I don't think it's easy to explain the subject so succinctly and comprehensively without there being an element of 'boringness' (your word, not mine ). I think one of the great things about this entry is that you've done really well to get the balance right, which must have taken considerable effort. I think most people would have focussed totally on the 'MNC's are evil' slant, and for avoiding that you deserve a great deal of credit. And I don't think this effort makes it boring at all, quite the opposite.

Couple of typoos!

Switzland (in table) - Switzerland
impact on politicvs - politics
a garenteed income - guaranteed

Style - would personally make 'Is Having An MNC Good For My Country?' 'Case Studies of MNCs', 'Case Studies of MNCs ', and 'Some Key Terms For Writing About MNCs and Globalisation' into full headers as these are clearly seperate parts of the entry. The 'The 12 Largest MNCs in 1996' header in black is really hard to see, at least on my screen....

Good work

I swear the tag doesn't do what it's supposed to do! If you leave it as normal then you can't see the writing at all! I've made it a subheader instead. I've also done the typos and the headers.

This is surprisingly easy! I was ready for people to tell me all sorts of things were wrong!

Interesting stuff.

One general comment - it is quite long - if you want to put more stuff in, you might want to split it in two parts.

A few other comments:

In why MNCs happen, you might want to briefly discuss, why they get so big, as well as why they go international.

A GDP comparison between say Mars and a small state is a good eye opener to get the scale of these things.

In the impacts section, specify that these are a few examples.

Under water shortages, you could link to the recent issues that the Coca-cola plant has had in India, it should google easily as its been in the news recently.

Where you say env + social standards are lowered for MNCs, I think the point is more that they are not very high or well enforced in the first place. A Nike factory in Indonesia would probably be a safer place to work than the factory next door producing for the local market.

sprout

Actually occassionally they lower them further than they already are for local businesses! They also have much less checks etc.

I have got the GDP comparisions between the largest companies and their production countries...does that not give an idea? There's a huge difference between Tanzania and it's company...I don't want to get too nitty gritty because I may put in a country that doesn't actually have any MCNs in it which would possibly be slightly unfair as a comparison.

I'll go and find a nice link for the water one.

You're right that I can't stuff much more in it. To be honest I was looking at it all from a geographical view rather than the moral etc view, meaning that there's not much more to put in I think...maybe I'm wrong. Anyway I'll go and find that cola thing.

Okay I've got a problem.

The GNP of Malaysia is roughly RM210 billion. But I don't know what that is in US dollars. Ahh says you! Why don't you convert it using a handy-dandy online converter? Because...I don't know how many 0s there are in a billion...just a lot!

Can anyone help me and get back to me? That way I'll be able to have a comparison between Mars and a host country.

1 billion = 1,000,000,000. (Assuming it's a U.S. billion, which it's bound to be.)

*frowns* can't be!

$55,293,714,948

That CAN'T be right! That's higher than Denmark's!!!

OKay excepting the small problem with Malaysia suddenly being a rich country, I've sorted out the other things as far as I know...anything more at all?

Oh I'll be back

#Well done for the balance side of this Kat. I think its an issue we should all be concerned about.

You are still spelling Guaranteed incorrectly (at least twice)

Ach why can't I spell that word properly!?
I've sorted that completely now, I promise.

Hello Kat

Here goes...

Good entry which reminded me that once upon a time, I did Economics A level So it must be clearly written, cos I got an O

First off the things that confused me a bit:

>>Production was only 3%<< I don't understand this figure. If there was a relatively large manufacturing base, why was production so low? And 3% of what? What was the other 97%? If manufacuring accounted for 40% of employment, presumably those people were producing stuff?

The three lists of impacts are good and comprehensive, without being boring However, I started reading them, thinking they were meant to be negative impacts (or at least ones to be mitigated) and then hit on some positive ones too

I think the paragraph preceding the lists could be re-worded. Perhaps along the lines of:
>>As with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages to having a company producing in an LEDC. Because LEDC governments are usually desperate to attract MNCs, they will sometimes overlook accepted environmental or social standards in an effort to reduce MNC economic overheads; the economic benefits often outweigh any social or environmental impacts.<<
Then split the lists into advantages and disadvantages, to hammer it home

What do you think?

>>Development of mineral wealth and new energy sources may take place<< I'm not clear if this is an advantage or a disadvantage? It might be exploitation of a nation's mineral wealth and non-renewable energy resources, which is bad (generally - I know; a sweeping statement). But it might be providing income and renewable energy for local people, which could be considered to be good

>>MNCs get much more out of having production lines in other countries, than the host nations themselves, even if both countries are MEDCs.<< Now, I know you've explained this earlier on, but by the time I got here, I'd forgotten So it might be as well to re-explain it

>>The State An Minas Gerais<< Definition please

The list of Key Terms includes a few that don't appear in the Entry I don't think you need to include them in this case. Or add them to the Entry in context Oh, and on EIAs specifically, they are not undertaken by a local authority (not in UK at any rate), but by the developer/applicant seeking planning permission. And completing an EIA does not mean that you get planning permission; it can still be refused.

Now for the typos

Lots of >>, and<< You don't have a comma before 'and' according to my book of grammar.

>>The huge discrepancies between pay ... has opened<< - >>have opened<<

>>eg The EU<< - >>eg the EU<<

>>the negative effects are serious ones and needed to be given...<< - >>... are serious and need to be given...<<

>>near impossible to place economics sanctions<< - >>...economic sanctions<<

>>example of this problem is the 1998 economic crisis<< - >>... problem was the 1998 economic crisis<<

>>The question that arises most often in discussion about MNCs is the ethical and moral obligations of the company.<< - >>The questions that arise most often in discussion about MNCs are those related to their ethical and moral obligations.<< Actually, you might need to define the difference between 'ethical' and 'moral' there. I'm not sure there's that much of a difference in this context

I think that'll do for now Need a now, Kat?

Five Fb

Six Fb

*collapses and grabs at *

Right I'll sort those out now...

You know maybe I ought to follow you around PR and take notes