Talk:Multinational corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Multinational corporation, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as b-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Demarcation between Multinational Company and Transnational Company

I WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TWO TERMS i.e. MULTINATIONAL COMPANY AND TRANSNATIONAL COMPANY

I need to know what a trans national company is and all the facts and figures...not mulitinational:(

England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.113.59 (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC) HARPREET DUSANJH RESEARCH FELLOW, INDIA

YOU DONT NEED TO TALK IN ALL CAPS

DAVID BOWMAN, EDIT NINJA, BEHIND YOU

The difference = there isn't any major difference as such. It is a term which has evolved over time - multinational corporation being the first title and transnational being the more modern name. This is because corporations now operate transnationally abroad - not just nationally or regionally as competition has become more fierce/widepsread. So, as the term suggests, as the multinational companies have advanced into markets overseas and worldwide, they have become transnational - rather than just multinational or regional. Any standard IPE (International Political Economy) textbook will outline this for you.

(NightShade101 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1930 "start date"

Doesn't the "1930" "start date" look a bit late in the light of this from the BP article?

"In May 1901 William Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Persia to search for oil, which he found in May 1908. This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. In 1909 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was created to exploit this find. The company grew slowly until World War I when its strategic importance led the British Government to acquire a controlling interest in the company and it became the Royal Navy's chief source of fuel oil during World War I.

"In 1917, the war allowed it to take the British arm of the German Europaische Union, which used the trade name British Petroleum. After the war ended the company, in which the British Government now had a 51% interest, moved to secure outlets in Europe and elsewhere. but its main concern was still Persia, following the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 the company continued to trade profitably in that country."

Robin Patterson 02:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or this:

In 1905 Nestlé merged with the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company. By the early 1900s, the company was operating factories in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. World War I created new demand for dairy products in the form of government contracts. By the end of the war, Nestlé's production had more than doubled.

Robin Patterson 02:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Surely the debate should start with colonial nations (primarily Britain and Netherlands) with tea and spice trading and the East India Trading Company, Hudson Bay Trading etc

[edit] Dead link

TNCONLINE.net^does not exist anymore


[edit] Microsoft

Does MS belong here? Most of people work in Redmond, Washington, US. They have some labs outside US, they have support center in almost every country but I guess they would be only happy to get rid of them if possible. Does multinational == big? Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is Multinational means offices in multiple countries... those support centers make it a multinational company. Graniterock 00:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that multinational implies large, formerly independent units in many countries. That MS has localisation and call centers doesn't fit the picture that much. (Someone had also added Google who doesn't have even these, AFAIK.) I think huge steelmakers/car manufacturer/food processors/etc are better examples. Pavel Vozenilek 19:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MS and Google do not just have call centers, they do business in these countries, get sued and sanctioned by the governments of these countries, and follow different laws in every single one of these countries. If that isn't multinational I don't know what is --Alterego 19:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree... the act of doing significant business and having a presence in other countries makes it multinational. I'm still trying to to research the transational thing. It has to do with not having a cetralized head office. Microsoft would be multi-national because it is clearly based out of the US. A transnational company is much more decentralized often purchasing services from contractors rather than owning them directly. This way, the company is not directly responsible for the contractors - they can cut themselves off and fluidly move into another country rather than having to face the legal rammifications. Graniterock 20:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multinational vs Transnational?

I have to verify this - but I have been lead to beleive that a Multinational company is what is described on the page with a centrailzed head quarters. A transnational company has no "head office" and move whatever base of operations it has fluidly between its national offices.

If this ends up being correct should I create a new article and disable the redirects? Or am I better to just make a note of it within the page itself?

Thanks! - Graniterock

I would suggest to make a note on "the page itself" and then redirect transnational company to this page. --PBS27 15:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
graniterock - make a new page and interlink the two somewhere; by the way, i believe you are right!213.6.36.71 11:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Does a software development company come under MNC? Although, there is no physical things produced, but they happen to run their operations across two or more countries. Especially in case of Arabic Countries, at times it is easier to have a small office set up over there to keep operations costs low, while transfer the development job to India or China or wherever. Npindia 00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Dutch East India Company the first multinational?

I believe this article (http://www.bartleby.com/65/fu/Fugger.html) proves otherwise.


The Dutch were the first.Not the British.

I would argue that the Templars were the first multinational in terms of business. They capitalized on their immense wealth and holdings to more than one country (and government)... way before the Dutch imagined or the British established the "East India Trading Company". Rarelibra 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the whole part about the Knight's Templar should just be removed, until a conclusion can be made. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to say "Some believe A, while others believe B", without ever reaching a valid conclusion. Make up your mind, and if a different conclusion is discovered to be correct, change the article to reflect it. Sandwiches99 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] where are these examples from?

included (what for?):

Apple Computer (Revenue $ 13.93 billion USD)

Fonterra (Revenue $ 6.80 billion USD)

Google (Revenue $ 3.19 billion USD and multinational??)

Kyocera

Nike (Revenue $ 13.74 billion USD)

Nintendo (Revenue $ 4.64 billion USD)

Nortel Networks (Revenue $ 9.82 billion USD)

Parmalat (both bankrupt and never a truly big player)

Schlumberger (Revenue $ 17.46 billion USD)

Yahoo! (Revenue $ 3.57 billion USD !!)


not included (why not?):

Allianz (Revenue $128.00 billion USD)

Altria Group (Revenue $ 89.61 billion USD)

AXA (Revenue $ 72.00 billion USD)

Boeing (Revenue $ 52.45 billion USD)

Chevron Corporation (Revenue $155.30 billion USD) !!

Citigroup (Revenue $108.28 billion USD)

ConocoPhillips (Revenue $136.90 billion USD) !!

DaimlerChrysler (Revenue $19.32 billion USD) !!

ING Group (Revenue $ 92.80 billion USD)

Samsung (Revenue $116.80 billion USD)

Siemens AG (Revenue $ 75.17 billion USD)

Total (Revenue $159.00 billion USD) !!

Volkswagen AG (Revenue $156.00 billion USD) !!

... and quite a few other more worthy candidates


Sebastian Leibnitz | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


I'll change the lot if there is no complain... Sebastian Leibnitz | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes please. I was going to ask the same question. Airbus ($34 b) can be used as example of multinational corporation from the beginning. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] multinationals in sectors of economis

hi,i would like to know what attracts multinational corporations to specific sectors of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.112.18 (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)