You are on page 1of 12


I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................2
II GLOBALIZATION ADVANTAGES......................................................3
III GLOBALIZATION CONCERNS.........................................................5
IV GLOBALIZATION & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY..............................8
V CONCLUSION..................................................................................10
VI REFERENCES.....................................................................12
This is not the first time we have experienced a truly global market. By many measures, the world
economy was possibly even more integrated at the height of the gold standard in the late 19th
century than it is now
. Moreover, there are some key differences that make todays global
economy more contentious:
1. Restrictions on immigration were not as common during the 19th century, and consequently
labors international mobility was more comparable to that of capital;
2. There was little head-on international competition in identical or similar products during the
previous century, and most trade consisted of the exchange of non-competing products,
such as primary products for manufactured goods;
3. Governments had not yet been called on to perform social-welfare functions on a large
scale, such as ensuring adequate levels of employment, establishing social safety nets,
providing medical and social insurance, and caring for the poor.
The concept that a nations prosperity depends on its global competitiveness is the basis of
modern economic policy. Since the 1970s, Governments have started to lay the foundations to
implement a new set of policies that would promote long-term stability and growth. The basis of this
new economic consensus was the desire for higher living standards and prosperity by giving
priority to, and supporting, 3 pillars: Competition and the market system, Macro-stability, and
Globalisation. It is the general opinion by many economists that there are considerable benefits to
be yielded by Businesses in the third pillar of the new consensus Globalisation. This paper
attempts to address if Businesses are truly adding any further value to either themselves or
consumers by embracing the third pillar and therefore pursuing an international presence.
Governments and industry have traditionally been the focal points of most society from many
centuries, however the power balance between the roles is shifting. This is in large part due to the
changes experienced from moving from state-led to market led regimes
. Growth of multinationals
and the globalisation of business have altered the operational dynamics of business. The influence
and power of trans-national companies in some instances has even surpassed that of the local
government, desperately seeking foreign investment and trading partners. Business and industry
play a crucial role in the social and economic development of a country. Business enterprises
provide major trading, employment and livelihood opportunities.
This statement by the UN on
sustainable development clearly states the considerable economic impact of businesses within
countries and the emphasis on responsible citizenship by these businesses. An OECD reports on
governance states - sustainable development is of crucial importance for all citizens. It requires
efforts from society as a whole, and the government commitments would be useless if they were
not mirrored by similar commitments from the business sector and civil society
Rodrik, D., Has Globalisation Gone Too Far
Rodrik, D., Has Globalisation Gone Too Far
Corporate Management Tools for Sustainable Development: From Accounting to Accounting
Strengthening the role of Business and Industry, Agenda 21, UN sustainable Development
Governance for sustainable development, OECD
An economy which is run well in the Global market place, is likely to prosper through increased
growth, investment, superior international relations, and the augmentation of growth enhancing
attributes e.g. job creation, generation of income from exchange rates and new tax revenues, and
a greater spread for commercial financial risk. Again a keen Governance of the rigours of such
activity in an economy will help avoid the possible traps of inflationary pressure, misalignment or
volatility of the exchange rate, or decline in support for domestic industries. Political stability, low
inflation, and therefore a steady currency will maximize the benefits which foreign investment can
Governments in the developed countries have embraced the new consensus and experienced
increased growth in particular through: the liberalization of foreign trade; the development of
efficient domestic market systems; the significant utilization of technology; investment in human-
capital, and increased prudence in government spending and policy-making. Developed countries
have consistently demonstrated their ability to shift their activities to areas with high returns e.g.
from manufacturing to high technology, and additionally have developed secure infrastructures to
cope with the demands of managing cross-cultural trading, markets and capital. The 3 most
affluent areas of the world USA, EU, and Japan - currently generate 53% of the worlds GNP but
a great diversity in their performance has developed. In particular Japan and Germany have over
the past 2 decades experienced, although for different reasons, a relatively significant decline. The
situation, in which Japan finds itself, is a result of its failure to implement effective monetary-
policies, in particular across the banking sector, and Germany is experiencing a recession with low
consumer confidence, higher unemployment, and increased government debt.
A central key to developing countries having prospered or not in the current decades has been the
result of their ability to foster a successful macro-economic climate, in particular to create strong
enough infrastructures which can defend domestic markets while reaching in to new foreign
markets, Dermott McAleese, Economics for Business
. Latterly, success stories of the developing
countries have included China, India, South Korea, and Mexico. The countries that have performed
better have done so by optimising their resources, consolidated their competitive advantages, and
more efficiently catered for trading in the more sophisticated global markets. Additionally, Asian
countries with less dependency on exports especially to Japan e.g. China, have remained
encouragingly stable, and in 2002, China enjoyed an overall growth rate of 7%.
Two issues, which raise confusion amongst commentators, are the concerns over fair wages and
working conditions. The standard analysis by economists of comparative advantage suggests that
trade is mutually beneficial to the countries that engage in it; furthermore that when labour-
abundant countries export labour-intensive manufactured goods such as goods like clothing, not
only should their national income rise but the distribution of income should shift in favour of labour.
However, there are concerns about both employees and working conditions namely 1) that in
developed countries the risk is that employment will rise because firms will seek cheaper labour in
developing countries; and for 2) developing countries, workers are paid vastly lower wages and
subsequently work in far worse conditions. The table below shows a comparison of workers across
2 countries (developed and developing) in terms of goods produced and comparative productivity.

McAleese, D., Economics for Business (FT Prentice Hall, 2002)
Krugman, P., and Obstfeld, M., International Economics (Addison Wesley, 2003)
Krugman, P., and Obstfeld, M., International Economics (Addison Wesley, 2003)
Before Trade High-tech goods/hour Low-tech goods/hour
US 1 1
Mexico 1/8 1/2
After Trade High-tech goods/hour Low-tech goods/hour
US 1 2
Mexico 1/4 1/2
What this illustrates is the comparative productivity and therefore relative wage difference. Before
trade, it takes an equivalent worker in Mexico 2 hours to produce a low tech and 8 hours to
produce a high tech good, and after trade it takes a Mexican worker 4 times as long to produce the
same goods. Some analysts therefore would indicate that American workers should be paid up to 4
times more. Based on these calculations, a company would be better served to keep high-tech
production in US and low-tech in Mexico additionally the purchasing power of wages has
increased in both countries, and because of trade the price of each countrys imported good in
terms of that countrys wage rate has fallen.
Free trade and foreign direct investment may take
jobs from workers (including low-paid workers) in the advanced industrial economies and give them
to cheaper workers in poor countries, and because of agreements such as North American Free-
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for instance, there are no tariffs or investment restrictions to stop an
American manufacturer closing an old factory in the United States and opening a new one in
Mexico. The expectation is therefore that rich-country workers need to be flexible and go where the
work is, additionally taking the risk that on the one hand, their wages may fall, or fail to rise as
quickly as they would have done otherwise; on the other, they benefit from lower prices along with
everybody else.
Another argument states that if trade creates new opportunities, this is a better
alternative for developing countries than no alternative at all.
There is much discrepancy across 3 equality concerns - inequality has worsened within countries;
inequality has worsened across countries; inequality among the people of the world is rising as
However in The Economist article Convergence, period it reports that inequality has gone
up in some countries and down in others. (Rapid globalisation does not push all one-way:
emerging-market globalisers such as South Korea and Indonesia have seen inequality fall.) If you
measure incomes in terms of purchasing power rather than at market exchange rates, incomes are
a lot more equal. (The reason is that the cost of living is lower in poor countries.) Inequality
measured across all the people of the world, therefore, may very well be falling.
Altogether, given
freer trade, both rich-country and poor-country living standards rise.
That gives governments
more to spend on welfare, education and other public services additionally advancing technology
allows a country to do something very similar: to make more with less.

At the heart of some peoples concerns is the fact that huge trans-national companies are
becoming more powerful and influential than democratically elected governments, putting
Krugman, P., and Obstfeld, M., International Economics (Addison Wesley, 2003)
Convergence, period The Economist Jul 18th 2002
Convergence, period The Economist Jul 18th 2002
Convergence, period The Economist Jul 18th 2002
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
shareholder interests above those of communities and even customers. Ecological campaigners
say corporations are disregarding the environment in the stampede for mega-profits and
marketplace supremacy. Human rights groups say corporate power is restricting individual
freedom. After all, globalisation is merely capitalism writ large.
Globalization is fundamentally,
the closer integration of countries and people of the world which has been brought about by the
enormous costs of transportation and communication and the breaking down of artificial barriers to
the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and (to a lesser extent) people across borders
Arnsperger & Hoover (2003).
Ho"ever as Arnsperger & Hoover (2003) go on to arg#e $ t%e
&arket '#nda&entals o' globali(ation is based on an ideolog) "%i*% pro&otes "inners and losers
"%ereb) *orporations are e*ono&i* agents "%o pro&ote t%e sel'+interested iss#e o' ,val#e 'or
&one)-. T%e) also go on to 'ire at t%e idea t%at govern&ents &#st stand aside 'or a sense o' p#bli*
good and t%at govern&ents o'ten get-in-the-way o' *orporations being able to r#n t%eir b#siness
e''i*ientl). T%is s#pports t%e belie' t%at 'ree trade o' prod#*ts and &one) is t%e pri&ar) &over in
t%e "orld and t%at *orporations rat%er t%an govern&ents are t%e pri&ar) 'a*tor o' &arket order and
a#to&ati* dis*ipline in international trade. .n one %and t%e ne" *ons#&ers %ail a ne" de&o*ra*)
$ a &arket de&o*ra*) $ "%ere 'airness lies in t%e #nderstanding t%at ever) individ#al %as t%e rig%t
to engage t%e s)ste& and t%at globali(ation protesters are si&pl) &isin'or&ed and/ or &is+
reasoning t%e arg#&ent. Also, t%e &arket rational t%at a 'ree 'lo" o' goods is no" available to
t%ose ,t%at need t%e&- is '#nda&entall) 'la"ed $ t%e 'lo" o' goods *ontin#es not to go t%ose t%at
need t%e& b#t t%ose "%o "ill pa) 'or t%e&. Finall) t%e &#*% la#ded *ons#&er+*entri* notions o'
re*ent )ears are si&pl) anot%er devi*e to steer o#r attention a"a) 'ro& t%e 'a*t t%at *ons#&ers
are not at t%e *enter o' t%is ne" ,'lo" o' goods- b#t again in t%e &iddle are t%e *orporations.
0' as Arnsperger & Hoover state t%e protesters are &isin'or&ed + "%o *ontrols t%e in'or&ation1
2nglis% e*ono&ist 3ill H#tton (2002) points to t%e do&inan*e o' t%e 45 + If the US could
dominate services, IT, the flow of information, telecoms and intellectual property rights, then it
controlled the framework in which all trade flows took place.
From the launch of the first satellite
in 1962 the US had been alert to how this new technology would equip its companies to take the
lead in controlling and disseminating information e.g. the 1962 Communications Satellite Act
allowed private companies to take stakes in NASAs direct broadcasting satellites for commercial
usage, and provided AT&T to extend its monopoly on long-distance communications into space
American dominance of the media has been an effect of the enormous reach attained by American
televisions, IT and telephone operators. Additionally, the US has consistently demonstrated an
aggressive attitude towards defending and promoting its own interests over others
e.g. in 1995
the US forced through GATT a framework agreement on trade-related intellectual property or
TRIPs protecting the enforcement of intellectual property rights with the result that the US patent
office became the gatekeeper; in April 1996 the US delegation walked out of the WTO talks unless
telecoms liberalisation was made global.

The Economist also argues that that it is technology rather than trade which is much the more
powerful driver of inequality
and that the widening income inequality, is overwhelmed not just by
technology but also by education and training. For concerns about the effect of integration on rich-
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Globalisation: Are the anti-globalisation movements doing the right thing? Is there a European alternative to the Washington consensus?, Arnsperger, C., and
Hoover, C.
Hutton, W., The World were in ( Little Brown, 2002)
Hutton, W., The World were in ( Little Brown, 2002)
Hutton, W., The World were in ( Little Brown, 2002)
Hutton, W., The World were in ( Little Brown, 2002)
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
countries: the remedy lies with education and training, and with help in changing jobs
. Spending
in those areas, together perhaps with more generous and effective help for people forced to
change jobs by economic growth, addresses the problem directly and in a way that adds to
society's economic resources rather than subtracting from them.
In the countries that can afford it
unemployment policies are now joined at the hip with life-long learning initiatives to get workers
turned around and back into the ever dynamic market place.
In what Rugman and Hodgetts (2003) call The Triad
the 3 major trading and investment blocs in
the international area are US; EU; Japan.
FDI in the Triad 1998 (US $ billion)
Trade in the Triad 2000 (US $ billion)
Rugman and Hodgetts (2003) report that these 3 blocs account for 61% of all world imports and
over 53 % of all world exports in 2000, and that although the amount of FDI throughout the world
has tripled in the last decade, the triad still accounts for around 80%.
What these figures
demonstrate to us is that almost 80% of all trade and FDI happens between these 3 areas and
members of the triad compete with each other in their home markets as well as in the markets of
the others. Consequently the over dominance of The Triad means that developing countries still
only shared 28% of world trade in 1999. For countries like Asia-Pacific, with external trade largely
dependent on Japan, there has obviously been the negative effect of the Japanese recession and
weakening yen, however overall, the IMF World Economic Outlook of April 2002 states most
Asian economies still have the capacity to adsorb the effects of the weaker yen without this
jeopardizing their international competitiveness or financial sectors confidence. Many future
predications cite that the arrival of China into the WTO and the continuing developments of the
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Rugman, A and Hodgetts, R., International Business (FT Prentice Hall, 2003)
International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook (OECD, 1999)
International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook (OECD, 1999)
Rugman, A and Hodgetts, R., International Business (FT Prentice Hall, 2003)
EU Japan
EU Japan
Indian economy should force the Triad open but not for some years to come.
Roderik states t%at 6the most serious challenge for the world economy in the years ahead lies in
making globalization compatible with domestic social and political stability or to put it even more
directly, in ensuring that international economic integration does not contribute to domestic social
This certainly challenges the previous idea as expressed by The Economist in the
previous section that governments by ever increasing deregulation let corporations get on with
running business, by consequence have more resources for the state to invest in and invigorate
the welfare state. Rodrik outlines the emerging 3 tensions:
1. reduced barriers to trade and investment accentuate the asymmetry between groups that
can cross international borders (either directly or indirectly, say through outsourcing) and
those that cannot;
2. globalization engenders conflicts within and between nations over domestic norms and the
social institutions that embody them;
3. globalization has made it exceedingly difficult for governments to provide social insurance
one of their central functions and one that has helped maintain social cohesion and
domestic political support for ongoing liberalization throughout the postwar period.
Finally traditional logic tells us that for every job created, another one somewhere else will be
destroyed. Jobs that go will tend to be in industries that compete with imports, on average, studies
suggest, those jobs pay lower wages therefore people getting the higher-paying jobs are not
necessarily the ones who have lost the lower-paying jobs - so high and average wages may be
rising, but wages at the bottom may be falling (or at least not rising so fast -SM)and that means
greater inequality.
Therefore challenging the previous argument that inequality through trade is
decreasing, it is certainly not clear-cut that that the gap/ inequality between the richest and the
poorest in the world is narrowing. Materially speaking and from an analysis of GDP figures it would
seem that the majority of people are relatively speaking better off. However if we translate this into
a statement concerning quality of life, the prognosis is somewhat depressing. Progressive technical
and industrial advances have led to agricultural decline; environmental degradation, and
information asymmetry. A parallel increased in the breakdown of family and community life, plus
increased worker stress, surely cannot be by chance.
It has been argued persuasively by the likes of Milton Friedman
that it is not in the main domain of
business to address political issues and in particular, that corporate social responsibility as a
concept is at the fringes rather than the heart of the corporate identity. By all accounts businesses,
Rodrik, D., Has Globalisation Gone Too Far
Rodrik, D., Has Globalisation Gone Too Far
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Friedman, M., The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits (Harvard Business Review, 1970)
as much as they have inherited an increasingly important role within society and must be
responsible to that, cannot take on a role that is a replacement for government. Therefore a future
balance must be attained by 1) businesses becoming more socially responsible, and 2)
governments becoming better custodians of economic and social policy.
Although the rational of the likes of Milton Friedman in the 1970s makes on one hand a convincing
case, there is something particularly old-fashioned and out-of-date about this view. Business in the
Century is evolving speedily towards a new era where a highly person-centered culture is
having a direct bearing on profits - customers-needs taking precedence over products; human
capital as an equitable commodity; co-operation with allies developing into co-opetition with
competitors; and in the information age, transparency and accountability exposing weak
governance and decision-making.
If a business is to be an industry leader I would argue that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is
exactly the type of tool to help increase a Companys leadership position. As the WBCSD Council
states - a coherent CSR strategy, based on integrity, sound values and a long-term approach,
offers clear business benefits to Companies
- it can contribute to the long term prosperity of the
Company and therefore its survival, with potential commercial returns including e.g. higher sales;
lower disruption costs; neighbourhood licence to operate; government licence to operate;
reputation; employee morale; better operating environment; clear conscience.
Additionally, there
is a growing attraction in investor behaviour towards SRI
portfolios, and financial initiatives such
as the FTSE4GOOD and Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes promote the sense that principles and
performance go hand in hand
. In ever increasing numbers, investors (UK retail ethical funds
under management are projected to be worth 10 billion pounds by 2003
) are tuning into the
concept of sustainability to identify well-managed and future-orientated companies
. Thereby in
increasing numbers business are turning back towards the notion that - In a well-governed
society, opulence extends itself to the lower ranks of the people Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
If a Company decides to implement a coherent CSR strategy as a fundamental part of its business
behaviour, it should create a strategy integrating core mission, governance, and values;
operational logistics; auditing, monitoring, and reporting procedures; and human resources and
management. The crucial link between all these parts is the development of stakeholder
identification and communication channels. A review and challenge of its entire, existing strategic
and operational activities will provide a Company the opportunity to address what type of future it
desires. Some key points for addressing CSR are listed in the following table:
Factor Description/ Explanation
.Making good business sense, WBCSD
The Business Case: zero sum game or win-win? Prof. Chris Marsden
Socially responsible Investment (SRI) Prof. Chris Marsden
Socially Responsible Investment, FTSE
Barchester Green Investment
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes
Business is Business
A Company is not acting responsibly if it is going out of business
the development of CSR from within the existing corporate culture, and
assimilate a new strategy into the core business. A Companys primary focus
is its business activity, and it is acceptable that they must be successful and
profitable but not at any cost ignoring fundamental human rights, and
working against the better good of society as a whole should not be a cost
worth paying for.
Working within ones
sphere of influence
Companies should work within the boundaries of their sphere of influence.
They should decide what issues are most within their control e.g. core
operations such as labour standards or health and safety, and what issues lay
on the outer margins of influence e.g. government, civil infrastructure, legal
Addressing the impact
on the value chain
Companies especially MNEs should embrace the difficulties inherent in
devising policies at HQ when the problems are thousands of miles away. Map
issues along a value chain or a products life cycle to analyse potential issues
and dilemmas at their appropriate stage of the logistics cycle.
Partnership Building Companies should recognise the strategic importance of building partnership s
across the spectrum building useful relationships with both allies and on
occasion, opponents. Create a meaningful international and local network,
particularly with government and non-government organisations these
alliances will make all the difference if controversial problems arise.
Measurable and
Meaningful Evaluation
and Feedback Systems.
Companies should implement measurable methods of evaluating their progress to
analyse outcomes. Develop a set of performance indicators:
Measure what is in the companys control
Reflect stakeholder priorities while keeping in mind organisational goals
Provide consistency with shareholder criteria
Provide information in such a way that the benefits outweigh the costs
Be easily understood and few in number
Be reliable and consistent based on actual performance
Be accessible and understandable
Relate to the vision and goals of the organisation
Executive Commitment Either Executives and/or Governors should take a lead in the initiatives by
making themselves a figurehead for the issues and an example to other
managers in the Company, other Executives in their industry and other
industries, their staff, the managers and staff of their business partners, the
public, government and non-government bodies.
identification and
Companies should identify stakeholders and assess their likely significance
within the context of the Companys activities
Building meaningful
Appropriate information channels should be employed to ensure the
substantial information logistics and Key Performance Indicators are identified
and operational. Implement stakeholder-reporting process by firstly laying the
groundwork, embedding, and then communicating.
Long-term view Companies should view CSR as a critical long-term investment.
Guest Speaker, Levis Strauss, Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Development Course
Human Rights is it any of your business? Amnesty International and The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum
Delineating the boundaries, Corporate Social Responsibility, The WBCSDs journey
Performance Tools, Sustainable development Tools, Sustainability
Key Steps for Managing Stakeholder Reporting, Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Development, Prof. Chris Marsden
So, can we conclude wither globalisation is truly adding any further value to businesses,
consumers, or society?
Business should only continue to expand internationally if they have adequately assessed the
following indicators of market attractiveness:
Market size
Market Growth rate
Competitive Structure
Barriers to entry
Industry Profitability
Workforce availability
Social issues
Environmental issues
Political issues
Legal Issues.
Additionally, in the era of rationalisation, Companies should judge international expansion against
what the international opportunity brings them: does it fit with the Companys existing long-term
direction? Can the Company leverage advantage from the opportunity? What is the future scope of
activities? Does the Company have the ability to match resources and activities to the new
environment? Does the Company have the ability to build or stretch its existing resources and
competencies? What is the amount of major resource changes the proposed opportunity will
demand? And how will this opportunity affect existing operational processes? Mergers and
Acquisitions (M&A) have proven to be one of the most common ways for companies to gain an
international foothold and/or expand worldwide operations
. However as failure rates are as high
as 80%, M&A is losing its appeal. In 2000 worldwide there was a transaction value in M&A of
$3498 billion
, and mega-mergers reduced by 55% in 2001, and a further 29% in 2002.
Therefore businesses should continue to seek an international presence caustiously, and through
this process CSR is emerging as an increasingly important tool in the debate and has aided many
Companies to transform their international opportunities into successes e.g. Reebok; Levis; Shell;
Pentland Group; B&Q; Exxon Mobil.
Equally driven in the pursuit of the benefits of globalisation are many consumers. In the
bricks&mortar world, business is conducted in the physical market place and customers are
subordinate to traditional business relationships. However with the advent of the Internet,
increasing amounts of consumers wield great power over companies, with empowered search
ability and at negligible cost. The new economy has created a new dialogue between consumer
and company, with the flow of Information as the lynchpin. Information allows companies to
increasingly customise their products and relationships with customers, and customers use
information to increase their ability to choose. These two elements are equally strong bargaining
points, and are just two impacts of the new economy on Consumers. They are additionally aware
of and responsive to acting on behaviour by business that they dont like with switching costs at
Johnson,G., and Scholes,K., Exploring Corporate Strategy (FT Prentice Hall, 2002)
International Business, Rugman, A., and Hodgets, R., (FT Prentice Hall, 2003)
Strategic Management, Hungenberg, Harald (ENPC, MBA) 2003
Mergers and Acquisitions, Professor Duncan Angwin, ENPC 2003
an all time high/ loyalty rates at an all time low, surely no company can imagine it will get away for
long with overlooking situations such as maltreatment of workers, child labour, discrimination,
environmental degradation.
Roderick points to the increased quality of government Whither it is the supranational; national,
regional or local progresses will more crucially be dependent on the quality of each individual
institution this trumps everything else.
And governments no matter how good face a tough
time. For example, as the UN attempts to answer public protests and impose international labour
standards setting, many developing countries meet this with resistance, perceiving it as a form of
protectionism. They resist change because they fear it will result in them having to adsorb costs to
improve labour conditions, thereby raising prices and placing them out of the competitive markets.
So though the critics have a compelling case, I believe that as long as globalisation is evitable, so
will be the pressure for Corporate Social Responsibility. I do not see the development of one being
out shone by the other, and our role as individuals plus our governments should be to continue to
foster and reward Companies and Countries who engage and forward the debate.
The earth is an inheritance that we look after for our children. Bernard Arnault, PGD, LVMH
Institutions Rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development, Rodrik, Dai, Subramanian, Atvind, trebbi, Francesco,
Arnault, B., 21 Patrons SEngagent, Dveloppement Durable (le cherche midi, 2002
Rodrik, D., Has Globalisation Gone Too Far (Source, unknown)
UN, Corporate Management Tools for Sustainable Development: From Accounting to Accounting
UN Strengthening the role of Business and Industry, Agenda 21, UN Sustainable Development
OECD, Governance for sustainable development,
McAleese, D., Economics for Business (FT Prentice Hall, 2002)
Krugman, P., and Obstfeld, M., International Economics (Addison Wesley, 2003)
Convergence, period The Economist Jul 18th 2002
Profits over people, The Economist Sep 27th 2001
Globalisation: Are the anti-globalisation movements doing the right thing? Is there a European alternative
to the Washington consensus?, Arnsperger, C., and Hoover, C. (ENPC MBA 2003)
Hutton, W., The World were in ( Little Brown, 2002)
International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook (OECD, 1999)
Rugman, A and Hodgetts, R., International Business (FT Prentice Hall, 2003)
Friedman, M., The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits (Harvard Business
Review, 1970)
Making good business sense (WBCSD, 2002)
The Business Case: zero sum game or win-win? Prof. Chris Marsden (ENPC 2002)
Socially responsible Investment (SRI) Prof. Chris Marsden (ENPC 2002)
Socially Responsible Investment, FTSE, 2003
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes 2003
Human Rights is it any of your business? (Amnesty International and The Prince of Wales Business
Leaders Forum 2002)
Delineating the boundaries, Corporate Social Responsibility (The WBCSDs Journey, 2002)
Performance Tools, Sustainable development Tools (SustainAbility, 2003)
Key Steps for Managing Stakeholder Reporting, Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Development,
Prof. Chris Marsden (ENPC 2002)
Johnson,G., and Scholes,K., Exploring Corporate Strategy (FT Prentice Hall, 2002)
International Business, Rugman, A., and Hodgets, R., (FT Prentice Hall, 2003)
Strategic Management, Hungenberg, Harald (ENPC, MBA) 2003
Mergers and Acquisitions, Professor Duncan Angwin, ENPC 2003
Institutions Rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development,
Rodrik, Dai, Subramanian, Atvind, trebbi, Francesco, 2002
Arnault, B., 21 Patrons SEngagent, Dveloppement Durable (le cherche midi, 2002)