The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

Challenges and Challenges and conceptions conceptions of of globalization globalization An investigation into models of global change and their relationship with business practice 23 Christopher Bond Business School, University of Roehampton, London, UK, and Darren J. O’Byrne Department of Social Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK

Abstract Purpose – This paper, which is conceptual in both nature and approach, builds on a recent contribution to the theorization of “globalization” and seeks to utilise the framework developed therein to help promote a more complex conceptual understanding of the potential implications of how business operates and responds to these challenges in a global environment. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws primarily on a heuristic framework developed by O’Byrne and Hensby that reviews eight models of global change. In this paper, the authors review and give consideration to the relationship between these models and business practice and contend that this relationship is far more complex than the majority of the current literature in the business and management field represents. Within the paper, the authors explore and discuss the dynamics of the eight models of “globalization” and assess the potential implications for business practice of working within these often conflicting and contradictory paradigms of “globalization”. As part of this review, the authors consider the strategic implications of “globalization” for business practice and propose a conceptual model with eight strategic options which are aligned to the eight models of global change. Findings – The paper presents a tentative heuristic framework seeking to align the eight models of global change with strategic options that companies might peruse in response to the global forces for change. The paper concludes by advocating a more integrative and complex understanding of globalization than is currently the case and identifies potential for further research in this area. Originality/value – The paper develops a conceptual framework for assessing the challenges that processes of globalization present to business. The paper places a particular emphasis on considering the strategic implications of the various models of global change and offers a tentative framework for further debate and discussion. Keywords Change, Strategic choice, Globalization, Business practice Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction This paper builds on a recent contribution in the theorisation of “globalization”, and seeks to apply the insights from that development to a more complex understanding of the concept of globalization within the field of business. The paper draws primarily on a conceptual framework developed by O’Byrne and Hensby (2012) that reviews eight models of global change. Cross Cultural Management Vol. 21 No. 1, 2014 Within the first part of this paper the authors offer a brief summary of the main pp. 23-38 conceptions of globalization that underpin current thinking in business and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-7606 management practice. This summary serves to highlight the limits of our current DOI 10.1108/CCM-09-2012-0069 CCM understanding and knowledge in relation to globalization. Further it is claimed that the 21,1 uni-disciplinary perspectives often used to assess and discuss the concept of globalization fail to appreciate the true complexity of the multidisciplinary nature of business and the multifaceted challenges that globalization presents. Following this the authors introduce the conceptual framework developed by O’Byrne and Hensby (2012) and briefly outline how it can be used as an heuristic framework for assessing globalization as a process 24 rather than a thing. The paper then proceeds to review the eight models of global change and assess their potential relationship with business and management practice. The paper also offers a tentative conceptual framework for aligning and evaluating strategic options with the models of global change. The paper concludes by advocating that a greater emphasis and more complex understanding of globalization needs to be embraced by the business community if it is to respond to the challenges that this process creates. The conclusion also identifies potential for further research in this area.

Current conceptions of globalization in business and management We begin this paper with the claim that much of the literature on globalization suffers from a narrow understanding of its subject matter. When commentators refer to “globalization” they often do so without any clear, thorough interrogation into the actual dynamics of the process in question. “Globalization” thus becomes a thing, the actual meaning of which is left uncontested. As Tomlinson (2007, p. 148) points out, the “processes and experiences it describes [...] are hardly ever actually, literally global in their reach”. Over the last decade there has been an increasing interest in exploring the processes and challenges of globalization in business and management literature. Much of the literature within this field examines both the concept and processes of globalization from a single perspective. Key literature within the field has considered globalization as processes of: economic integration (Dixit and Norman, 1980; Ohmae, 1995a, b; Wolf, 2004; Dicken, 2007); convergence of markets (Roostal, 1963; Levitt, 1983; Jain, 1989; Peebles, 1989; Yip, 1995; Solberg, 2002; Johansson, 2003); application of cross-cultural management practices (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1987, 1998; Adler, 2001; Schneider and Barsoux, 2003; Steers et al., 2010); and the role, relationship and effects of globalization and technology (Cairncross, 1997; Castells, 1996, 2001; Friedman, 2000; Webster, 2005). There has also been an interest in the effects of globalization on strategic choice (Hout et al., 1982; Hamel and Prahalad, 1985; Porter, 1986; Ghoshal, 1987; Yip, 1989, 1995). Whilst some of this literature assesses the impact of globalization from a systemic or holistic perspective there is in general a lack of integration in assessing the impact that models of global change have on overall business practice or that adopt a more critical perspective. Our conceptualization of globalization is not dissimilar to that offered by Ritzer (2007, p. 1) where he contends that “globalization is an accelerating set of processes involving flows that encompass ever-greater numbers of the world’s spaces and that lead to increasing integration and interconnectivity among those spaces”. Where we depart from Ritzer, however, is in seeing all processes of globalization as leading to increasing integration and interconnectivity. For example, three of the models of global change reviewed (“balkanization”, “creolization” and “polarization”) primarily see the forces of globalization as leading to greater divergence rather than convergence. Understanding global change: eight models Challenges and This contribution treats global change as a complex mesh of overlapping processes, conceptions of often leading in very different directions. Eight such processes are discussed, although these are introduced as general conceptual forms, and the reality of global change globalization exists at the intersection of them all. The eight models are: globalization; liberalization; polarization; Americanization; McDonaldization; creolization; transnationalization; and balkanization. In this section of the paper we offer a short summary of each, but by 25 way of preface, an even shorter summary can be presented in Table I. The first of these eight models is termed “globalization” and is used in this paper to refer to a very specific process of global transformation, which is, in a literal sense, the process of becoming global. The extent to which anything “becomes global” is measurable by the extent to which it exhibits globality, i.e. the extent to which it engages directly with the globe. Globalization thus involves the erosion of mediating layers, such as that of the nation-state, and the emergence of the world itself as a meaningful unit of analysis, akin to what Marshall McLuhan famously termed “the global village” (McLuhan, 1962), or more recently for Martin Albrow, a “global age” (Albrow, 1996). There are, of course, many ways in which something can be described as being “global” in its outreach. The ultimate expression of the globalization of the world would no doubt be the abolition of nation-state boundaries entirely and the unification of the entire human population under a single world government, obedient to a single body of global law, and bound together within a single cultural and economic system. However, globalization as a process need not apply solely to the world. In a single act, such as an act of recycling, an individual can exhibit globality, because in that act she is engaging directly with the world as a single place. A corporation can do the same through its marketing campaign, if that campaign is specifically designed to reach out to the world regardless of borders as its audience. An event or a brand can be global if it is experienced or decoded on a global stage. Whether involving a “global citizen” or by a “global corporation”, the process of globalization thus refers to an orientation to the world as a single space, a definition most closely associated with the sociologist Robertson (1992, p. 132). For Robertson, globalization is not a new phenomenon at all, but a long-term historical project. What we call “globalization” today is the latest phase in, and the outcome of, the evolution of a consciousness of the world which began in Europe in the early fifteenth century (1992, p. 58). Modern history is, in effect, a history of globalization. In contrast, “liberalization” (a term often used by economists in relation to globalization) is the process by which borders between nation-states are being eroded.

Model Image of world society

Globalization Orientation to “one world” Liberalization Erosion of barriers between nation-states Polarization World divided into rich and poor Americanization American empire sustained through hard and soft power McDonaldization Standardization of practices across the world Creolization Ongoing local transformations through regional flows Table I. Transnationalization Emergence of level of governance above the nation-state Eight models of Balkanization Division of world into distinct and conflicting cultural blocs global change CCM While liberalization allows for freer flows of people, goods, capital and so on across 21,1 borders, it need not require any direct engagement with the globe itself. While the concept of free trade across borders is far from new, the current phase of liberalization probably begins in the late 1970s with the rise of the neo-liberal market ideology following the collapse of Keynesianism (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 41). As a model of global transformation, then, liberalization is clearly associated with a 26 particular economic and political ideology. Liberal and neo-liberal commentators celebrate it for its compliance with Adam Smith’s famous law of laissez-faire. Such a view has its origins in the classical liberal political philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual over the state, which is re-articulated as the claim that the state should not interfere in matters of personal freedom or commerce. In the more recent literature, it has been forcefully championed by Kenichi Ohmae, who argues that it is a duty of the modern state to ensure that its people “have the widest range of choice among the best and the cheapest goods and services from around the world” (Ohmae, 1990, p. x). Sympathetic commentators have sought to demonstrate the extent to which liberalization has been hugely beneficial – in economic and social terms – not only to richer countries but also to poorer ones (Bhagwati, 2004; Dollar, 2005, pp. 108-109). “Polarization”, meanwhile, refers to a process by which the world is becoming increasingly divided between rich and poor, dominant and subordinate. In effect, it imagines the emergence of two conflicting worlds. The polarization model effectively inverts the liberalization one – rather than viewing the “global marketplace” as facilitating mutually beneficial opportunities for exchange, it interrogates it as a process of exploitation. Within the neo-Smithian Marxian theoretical framework pioneered by Wallerstein (1974), unequal exchange relations between the dominant “core” and the subordinate “periphery” characterise the world economic system. In more recent years, it has become fashionable to refer to these two worlds a “north” and “south”, and to concentrate on the increasing marginalization of the latter (Bello, 2004), but the underlying theoretical framework remains: they exist in relation to one another. Global poverty is thus intrinsically linked to global wealth, and vice versa. The polarization framework thus contributes an explicit assault on the assumptions of both globalization and liberalization, which are in any case often conflated by proponents of this thesis, such as in the popular but misleading use of the term “anti-globalization” to refer to the movement comprised of activists quick to condemn, among other things, American economic policy, transnational corporations, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO), for being unjustly protective of the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor. Theorists of polarization argue that the fate of the south “is dictated by the requirements of the global market: a market that invariably prioritizes profit-making [...] above the less lucrative issue of human need” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 69). Like polarization, the “Americanization” framework clearly presents an image of the world as inherently divided between powerful and powerless. However, for those writing in this tradition, the dynamics of this power relationship are quite different. They emanate from, and reflect the interests of, the last remaining super-power, the USA. Americanization is thus posited as a theory of American imperialism, which takes many forms, including cultural, economic, and military-political. The concept of empire is grounded, here, in a strategy of dependency. Empires are not sustained solely by direct military presence. Rather, they are maintained through the establishment of cultural and economic needs which are provided for by the Challenges and imperial centre. The process of Americanization thus incorporates elements of both conceptions of “hard” and “soft” power. The global influence of American media, for example, has been not only financially beneficial to American corporations (Schilling, 1992), but has globalization also served to instil a sense of desire for American values and life-styles around the world (Friedman, 1994, p. 195). Brands, such as Coca-Cola or Nike, television programmes, from Dallas through Baywatch and Friends to Glee, and numerous other 27 such products have all therefore reinforced the position of American superiority and centrality by immersing themselves within, and becoming essential parts of, the everyday lives of people all around the world. The contemporary dominance of the American state is defined by its “capacity to eventually incorporate its capitalist rivals, and oversee and police ‘globalization’ –, i.e. the spread of capitalist social relations to every corner of the world” (Panitch and Gindin, 2003, p. 4). The success of American imperialism is thus in “its capacity to manage global capitalism and sustain its global empire” (Panitch and Gindin, 2003, p. 4). The dominant organs of global governance, including the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, are, far from being neutral of particular interests, “distinctly American” in their flavour. (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 95). So, while the world is being subtly (and in some cases, not so subtly at all) remade in America’s image, the imperial capital itself remains immune from the dynamics of this mythical globalization via its protectionist economic policies and its self-proclaimed right to ignore international law and declare war on any perceived challenges to its hegemony (Chomsky, 2003, p. 28). Although they are frequently conflated, it is necessary to distinguish Americanization from “McDonaldization”. The former presumes a political project in the making of American empire. The latter, by contrast, refers to the standardization of practices around the world. The model thus presented is of an increasingly homogenous world. Significantly, McDonaldization does not necessitate the decline of the nation-state, nor even of the autonomy of nation-states, but rather asks us to imagine a world in which cultural differences are being eroded and nation-states are becoming increasingly similar. The theory of McDonaldization has been famously developed by George Ritzer, although with an acknowledged debt to the concept of “one-dimensional society” put forward by Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s (Marcuse, 1964). Marcuse bemoaned the increasing dominance of scientifically rational practices in philosophy, politics and culture, which has eroded individuality, diversity and revolutionary thinking. Ritzer (1993) continues in the same vein, tracing this increasing dominance of bureaucratic and standardized practices back to Weber’s concept of “formal rationality”, Taylor’s scientific management, and Ford’s mass production techniques. All are characterized, Ritzer claims, by the instrumentalist pursuit of “efficiency” at the expense of the human experience. The contemporary form of this is best exemplified by the fast-food industry, with its standardized processes grounded in principles of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. Contrary to popular belief, the theory of McDonaldization is not about the global ever-presence of the so-named fast food chain, but about the spread of a heavily bureaucratic, and in Ritzer’s view highly irrational, form of rationality, and the de-humanization which ensues from it. “McDonaldization represents cultural, technological and political uniformity and homogeneity, CCM reproduced through global finance, communications, popular culture and the mass 21,1 media” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 111; Barber, 2003). Furthermore: [...] this homogeneity derives from an American template, but the process itself transcends a simple Americanization, just as its major symbols [...] have transcended their American origins and become “global brands” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 111). 28 In stark contrast to the homogeneity described by the McDonaldization model, “creolization” identifies a world of perpetual diversification. Advocates of this position make the point that any assumption of “authenticity” is problematic; cultures have never been static and have always evolved through the incorporation of or amalgamation with other traditions, values and ideas (Nederveen Pieterse, 1995, 2001). Creolization recognises that in the contemporary world of “flows and exchanges of products, practices, ethics, aesthetics and people” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 127), societies are hybrid entities. What it is important to recognise, though, is that these flows are not one-way. So, while the creolization perspective acknowledges a power relationship, whether rooted in capitalism, American imperialism or earlier European colonialism, it looks for how power is subverted through consumption. At the same time, it demands that we acknowledge the impact of non-Western cultures on the west (Nederveen Pieterse, 1995, p. 53). Of all the models presented in this paper, none is more misunderstood than “transnationalization”. The point of this paradigm is to suggest that the contemporary global condition is defined by institutions and practices which transcend the nation-state level. This does not, of course, make them global. It simply presumes the establishment of a level of governance and power above the nation-state. Liberal and cosmopolitan theorists of transnationalization might focus their efforts on the influence (or lack of it) of such bodies as the United Nations, the World Bank, the WTO and international law. More radical theorists of transnationalization present a critique of the role of transnational corporations and the transnational capitalist class in determining world affairs. The distinction between a critique of world capitalism from a transnationalist perspective and one drawing on Americanization or polarization derives from an appreciation of the actual sources of global power. Transnationalist theorists such as Sklair (2002) criticise the nation-state bias in these other approaches, arguing instead that the dynamics of power lie in corporations that are no longer required to swear any allegiance to nation-states and thus operate above their jurisdiction. Equally, the individuals who control these affairs are not entirely bound by the usual rules of citizenship – major business leaders and media moguls are capable of effectively buying and selling citizenship to suit their interests. Sklair and other transnationalists thus suggest that contemporary capitalism is driven by a new set of rules and institutions: transnational corporations, transnational classes, transnational practices, and underlying them all, a transnational ideology of consumerism (Sklair, 2002). More often than not, transnationalist writers seek to counter these excesses by demanding more legitimate sources of transnational power, such as strengthening the potency of international law, while more radical ones such as Sklair stress the need to counter the hegemony of the ideology of consumerism with an alternative socialist ideology of human rights. Of all the contemporary models of global changes proposed by O’Byrne and Hensby Challenges and (2012), the “balkanization” model is the most complex theory of conflict. The conceptions of globalization and liberalization models propose some degree of consensus, the Americanization, polarization and transnationalization models suggest control, globalization McDonaldization suggests conformity, and creolization suggests interplay. Balkanization emphasises conflict – the contemporary world is divided into competing cultural, ideological or political blocs. This, of course, leads to an 29 inevitable clash of interests. Each bloc perceives another as being a threat to its security, and its way of life. This is the framework that inspires Samuel Huntington’s famous assessment of the “clash of civilizations” (Huntington, 1997). Huntington proposes that the world can be divided into distinct civilizational blocs, of which the west is only one. Others include the African bloc (located primarily in sub-Saharan Africa), the Islamic bloc (in the Middle East), the Japanese bloc (in Japan), the Latin American bloc (in central and South America), the Orthodox bloc (in Russia and parts of South-east Europe), and the Sinic bloc (centred in China). Huntington makes it clear that suggestions about American imperialism or Western dominance are mythical, as dominant civilizations come and go. Conflicts continue to exist around the world between factions of each of these different civilizations. Subsequent neo-conservatives, reading this, made the case that the growing influence of other such blocs (notably the Islamic bloc, but also the Sinic, or Chinese, bloc), threatens the political and cultural strength of the west (Kagan, 2008). “The USA vies for power in this new world disorder alongside the emerging or re-emerging powers of Russia, China, India, Japan, Iran and Europe” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 188). Table II summarises the key characteristics the eight paradigms. However, as O’Byrne and Hensby insist, “the contemporary global condition can best be described as a complex social formation driven by forces which are at the same time globalizing, liberalizing, polarizing, Americanizing, McDonaldizing, creolizing, transnationalizing and balkanizing” (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2012, p. 203). The purpose of the remainder of this paper is to interrogate the extent to which each an engagement with this heuristic framework could lead to an enhanced and more complex understanding of the challenges globalization can present to business practice.

Model Advantages Disadvantages

Globalization Emergence of egalitarian global High degree of abstraction consciousness Liberalization Freedom to trade and of movement Economic instability Polarization Economic prosperity for some Poverty for many Americanization Peace and stability achieved through Unequal global power dynamics benign hegemony McDonaldization Modernization brings existential Erosion of local cultures familiarity and harmony Creolization Cultural diversity and enrichment Uncertainty due to loss of tradition Table II. Transnationalization International law and regulative power Absence of legitimacy and Advantages and accountability disadvantages of the Balkanization Re-empowerment of cultural identity Inevitability of conflict eight models CCM An evaluation of the potential implications of the models of global change 21,1 for business practice The first of the models, globalization, presents many challenges to business practice. The term has often been used in a rather generic and ambiguous sense in the extant business literature, however, it is arguably the model of global change that has been most heralded and discussed within the business and political communities to which 30 individuals, enterprises, corporations and governments have to respond. In terms of operating at a global level some economists have advocated the convergence of economic markets, systems and practices (Ohmae, 2001, Dicken, 2007). Similarly, as previously noted, there have been debates in marketing, human resource management and technology about developing global practices and systems to support international business activity. The growth of the global brand and its reach across the world has led many to believe that markets, consumers and economies are now inextricably linked at a global level. Businesses are also now starting to see the effect of global regulation on their activities, be it through international agreements on emissions (such as the Kyoto Protocol, 1997), or calls for greater regulation of financial markets (EU Summit on Financial Regulation, 2008). Whilst it is debatable to what extent consumers, employees and employers see themselves as “global citizens” or “global corporations” the continued rise of the global brand, convergence of markets and economies and the role of global regulation are likely to continue to impact on business practice and operations for the foreseeable future. It could be argued that the growth in interest of corporate social responsibility (CSR), particularly as it relates to the environment as a global resource and the rights of employees as global citizens, is in itself an example of globalization as a model of global change (Beck, 2005). Korzeniewicz and Moran (2007), in recent contributions to the debate, have perhaps been the strongest advocates of globalization in arguing that the unit of analysis for measurement of such aspects as inequality and business performance should shift from the level of the nation-state to the globe. As a strategic response to operating within this model of global change businesses and enterprises need to be able to exert influence at a global level, to global stakeholders and policy makers and potentially gain competitive advantage through increased brand recognition and extension. Liberalization as a concept and process of global change is something that business and international trade has increasingly embraced. Liberalization has led to an increase in the free movement of goods, services, people, capital and knowledge between nation-states. The growth and emergence of the major trading blocs such as NAFTA, EU and APEC along with a growing number of trading blocs in Africa and South America are all testament to a business world in which there are bi- and multilateral trade agreements which serve to both extend markets and competition for enterprise and business corporations. Along with this free movement of goods and services we also see a freer and more liberal exchange of business ideologies, processes and practices. The many attempts by Western corporations to emulate the quality practices developed by the Japanese manufacturing sector, such as just-in-time, quality circles or Six Sigma offer further evidence of the liberalization of business practices and processes across the world. Global change experienced as liberalization can increase business opportunities as new markets open up to those ready to exploit the potential that these offer. Competitive advantage when operating within this paradigm can be secured through the scale and size of business operations allowing Challenges and business corporations to gain first mover advantage as new markets open for their conceptions of products and services. Polarization as a model of global change reinforces notions of business practice based globalization on competitive advantage, domination and exploitation. It suggests a model of global change in which the forces of capitalism and the free market economy lead to winners and losers. These winners and losers are not just corporations and enterprises but whole 31 nation-states, regions and populations. Polarization can be seen in business practice between developed and developing economies, manufacturing and service economies and more recently between service and knowledge economies. The impact of polarization is that there are divides between the rich and the poor, consumer and producer and oppressed and oppressor on a global scale. In recent history, the divide between the north and the south in terms of economies, markets and consumerism have been clearly evident. Polarization, however, is unpredictable and creates instability for business and commerce. The recent rise and rapid growth in the economies of India, China, Brazil and other emerging nations has challenged many developed economies on how they can sustain themselves with increased global competition and pressure. Left unchecked polarization can lead to degradation of the world’s natural resources, mass unemployment in developed economies and increasing poverty in developing nations. Some even argue that left to its own ends the ultimate impact of polarization could be an implosion of the world economy (Chapman, 2010; Bello, 2004). Another effect of polarization is the mass migration of skilled labour from developing economies to service the growing needs of developed ones. A cursory glance at the profile of the nursing profession in many developed economies including the UK illustrates this mass movement of intellectual capital from the south to the north. Whilst some may argue there are positive gains for families of these migrant workers at home, as finances are sent back, there are dramatic effects on the developing economies to keep and sustain the skilled labour that they require to improve areas such as healthcare, education and business in their own countries. For those that operate within this paradigm of global change (and many would argue that both a number of richer nation-states and multinational companies do!) competitive advantage is gained from the exploitation of resources, both physical and human, in developing economies. This has led to some commentators to reframe “the global village” as “the global pillage” (Brecher and Costello, 1998). Americanization as a model of global change recognises the dominance that the USA has in respect of both its contribution and influence to global aspects of business practice and activity. The influence of the USA on consumers, employers and employees around the world has been unquestionably significant. Whether it be the influence of Fordism on working practices in industrialised nations or ideologies about what constitutes fairness, equity and justice in employment practices the USA and American corporations have exerted considerable influence on the nature, structure and models of business practice that operate in all four corners of the earth. Clegg and Carter (2007) note the impact that global transformation has played in respect of promoting the American model of the MBA and the associated values and beliefs about effective management and business practice inherent in this form of education. In respect of markets and brands the USA leads the world in perhaps being the mostly highly branded nation and in its ability to use its own brief history and processes of cultural assimilation to develop new products and brands which transcend CCM international boundaries and quickly become global products and services. Be it the 21,1 face of Colonel Sanders on a KFC family meal or a smiling Hispanic chap on Taco-Bell the USA has developed the concept of merchandising, commodification and branding around its values into a well oiled international machine. It is hardly surprising that in 2010 the USA dominated global brand recognition with 50 of the top 100 brands and having nine of the top ten global brands (Interbrand, 2010). The influence of 32 Americanization stretches beyond brands, products and business practices as its ideologies exert significant influence over international financial affairs, models of leadership and the organisation and coordination of world trade. When working with a model of global change dominated by this paradigm, corporations will often seek to gain competitive advantage through embracing and practising American ideologies and belief systems and reflecting these strongly in their brand image and identity. A model of global change predicated on notions of McDonaldization will of course, see standardization, regulation and homogenization as key aspects of effective business practice. The growth in “international standards” (commonly called ISOs) as regulated by the international organization for standardization, replication of businesses processes around the world (often driven by technology) and convergence of consumer tastes are all antecedents of what Ritzer (1993) has in mind in his interrogation of the processes of McDonaldization. It is perhaps hardly surprising then that the International Organization for Standardization (2011) proudly boasts that it has “developed over 18,500 international standards on a variety of subjects and some 1,100 new ISO standards are published every year”. As well as the potential effects of lack of differentiation, reduced consumer choice and a bland world of homogenization McDonaldization does place other serious challenges on global business. In particular, through processes of standardization and homogenization there are increased risks with respect to intellectual property rights and copyright. Technology whilst allowing for standardization across world markets, also to a great extent fuels the fake trade of Gucci watches, Prada bags and the very software systems that produce them! Whilst Beijing may diplomatically close The silk market every now and then to show compliance with WTO requirements the growth in the counterfeit economy is an increasing, and likely to be growing challenge, for both developed and developing economies and business corporations. McDonaldization can though also present opportunities for business growth and development. Production processes based on standardization can drive costs down and increase output thus making products available to larger consumer markets. Developments such as biotechnology and the commodification of services such as health, education and leisure can also open up new markets for corporations to exploit. Competitive advantage when operating under the conditions of McDonaldization can be gained through the appropriate application of technology and systems of standardization. Creolization as a model of global change represents considerable opportunities for businesses to enter, develop and work with new products, services and forms of business practice. As cultures evolve from the complex patterns of global migration new business opportunities are created. What results is a blend of influences fusing together to form entirely new cultural forms, “Thai boxing by Moroccan girls in Amsterdam, Asian rap in London, Irish bagels, Chinese tacos and Mardi Gras Indians in the USA” (Nederveen Pieterse, 1995, p. 53), to say nothing of the “quintessentially English” cup of tea and Britain’s most favourite dish, the curry. The growth of populations such as those that identify themselves as being British-Born- Challenges and Chinese (BBC), British-Indian or African-American in themselves open up new conceptions of market segments and create the space for new products and services to emerge. Often products developed for these sectors of the community then find their way into the globalization mainstream consumer market. Creolization as a model of global change can also effect working practices, celebrations of religious festivals and perhaps the operation of business practices within a whole nation-state. Consider, for example, the development 33 of the modern Chinese economy: with its tensions between capitalism and communism, free trade and protectionism, freedom and control. This might in itself represent an exemplar of how a nation-state’s economy and business practices are responding to the forces of creolization. Creolization recognises the fact that cultures are dynamic and transient, thus while a particular cultural form or practice may appear to have been imposed on a locality, it is always subject to interpretation and resistance, and from this often emerges something quite unintended and unexpected. A good example is taken from Howes (1996, p. 6): No imported object, Coca-Cola included, is completely immune from creolization. Indeed, one finds that Coke is often attributed with meanings and uses within particular cultures that are different from those imagined by the manufacturer [...] Coke is also indigenised through being mixed with other drinks [...] Finally, it seems that Coke is perceived as a “native product” in many different places – that is, you will often find people who believe the drink originated in their country not in the United States. Thus, within this rich tapestry of ever emerging and changing markets, consumer bases and societies competitive advantage is likely to best be secured by pursuing strategies that use innovation and creativity as their base. The next model of global change that we will review is transnationalization. With respect to business practice the growth in volume, size, power and wealth of multi-national corporations (often also termed transnational) is testament in itself to the force that this model of global change is exerting. Whilst many of these corporations have historically and still remain headquartered in the USA and Northern Europe we are now seeing the emergence of transnational corporations from rapidly developing economies, take India as an example with Tata, Reliance Industries and Kingfisher. It is likely that as investment increases from the east to the west that we will see the emergence of more transnational business corporations from the BRIC economies. It would appear that in the global world of international trade small is no longer beautiful. As well as a growth in these corporations the forces of transnationalization are also leading to a greater regulation of business practices through transnational organisations such as the WTO, IMF and campaigning groups such as those that advocate fair trade (examples include Clean Clothes Campaign, Rain Forest Alliance, Fairtrade, etc.). Another effect of transnational approaches to global change is the capacity for corporations to dis-embed aspects of their operations and relocate this elsewhere in the world, thus reducing the significance of place (location) as a restraining factor on business practice. Whilst early literature (Hall and Jacques, 1989; Lash and Urry, 1987) on this focussed primarily on the transformation from Fordist to post-Fordist production techniques this is now equally significant in the service and knowledge economies. For instance, outsourcing of customer call centres to India. For businesses this can bring advantages in reducing complexity, CCM but along with that reduction in complexity come increased pressures to find ways of 21,1 differentiating product and service offerings and maintaining a competitive advantage. Given the pressures that increased regulation at a transnational level place, coupled with the effects of the forces of McDonaldization (which often feed further regulation and standardization), then competitive advantage is most likely to be achieved through effective international supply chain management. 34 The final model that we review is that of balkanization. At first glance it may appear that such a model of global change would offer little opportunity for international business as national, ethnic and other barriers are reasserted. Some of the negative effects associated with this force of global change might be increased resistance to global brands, commodification, and processes of McDonaldization and Americanization (although others may herald this as a victory against the homogenization of the globe). Whilst some may suffer a loss of business opportunities, from ideological reactions to these forces, it can serve to open up increased opportunities for domestic, local and regional producers/suppliers of services (see for example Scott-Cato’s (2013) advocacy of the bio-regional economy). Indeed, although the business world, corporations and nation-states are urged to respond to the challenges of globalization for their own survival there is evidence to suggest that most trade is regional and localised and that only a small percentage of world trade and business is truly global (Rugman, 2003). Some corporations have been quick to see the business opportunities that balkanization can present, for example, the growth in Shiri’ah banking and financial services products for the Islamic community. In respect to marketing and advertising this model of global change would support the call for greater cultural relativism and less globalization in its practice. Firms that seek competitive advantage when working with this model of global change are most likely to use strategies of differentiation, specialization and customization.

Conclusion Within this paper we have sought to articulate the complexity underpinning debates around globalization. We have advocated the application of a multi-dimensional approach which highlights the various forces at play in global transformation. We have attempted to be careful in not prioritising any one such force, or any single explanatory factor, because to do so would be to fall into the very trap of reductionism and simplification of which we have been critical from the outset. However, we are not suggesting that in many cases the reality of these forces and processes is not driven by particular power interests. Ours represents a contribution to a “critical globalization studies”. In respect of assessing the implication for business we have attempted to evaluate how international business practices might be affected by a need to adjust and work within each of these forces for global change. Whereas Porter (1979) famously identifies five forces that impact upon competitive advantage, we propose that in respect of the global business environment at least eight forces can be distinguished. Whilst we have commented upon these under the various models of global change we have also sought to recognise that these models or forces are not mutually exclusive and that the reality for international business is a need to work with the complex interplay of these forces at the intersections of their operation. The model is presented in Table III. Challenges and Model Strategies for gaining competitive advantage conceptions of Globalization Competitive advantage through increased brand recognition and globalization brand extension Liberalization Competitive advantage through size and economies of scale allowing entry into new markets Polarization Competitive advantage through exploitation of resources in 35 developing economies Americanization Competitive advantage through embracing and practising American ideologies and business practices and building these into brand image and identity McDonaldization Competitive advantage through effective application of technology and standardisation Creolization Competitive advantage through innovation and creativity Table III. Transnationalization Competitive advantage through effective international supply chain Strategic options management for working with models Balkanization Competitive advantage through specialisation and customisation of global change

Whilst this paper has adopted a conceptual approach to the consideration of globalization it is hoped that the heuristic frameworks presented might facilitate opportunities for further research of both a conceptual and empirical nature. In terms of conceptual research there is further scope for expanding on this papers advocacy of a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of globalisation and its effects on business practice. Therefore, we would advocate that to further our understanding of such a complex set of processes it is necessary to engage not only with the traditional business and management literature but with contributions from across the social sciences and cognate disciplines. In terms of empirical research there are various contributions that this paper could make to a wide range of business and management research agenda. For example, in the study of business ethics a case study based approach could be used to contrast the rhetorical values of a corporation with the reality of strategies it adopts in response to pressures for global change. Case study research could also be used to investigate how corporations strategically negotiate and work with these competing global challenges. A more quantitatively based study could aim to test out the existence of the proposed eight strategic alternatives offered in table three by using this as a classificatory framework for assessing current corporations practice in relation to international strategy. Finally, there is much research to be done in analysing the social, economic and political implications of business practices operating within this complex global environment.

References Adler, N. (2001), International Dimensions of Organisation, 4th ed., Thomson Learning, New York, NY. Albrow, M. (1996), The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge. Barber, B. (2003), Jihad vs McWorld, 2nd ed., Corgi, London. Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Managing across borders: new strategic requirements”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 7-17. CCM Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Corporation, 21,1 Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Beck, U. (2005), Power in the Global Age, Polity Press, Cambridge. Bello, W.F. (2004), Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy, Zed Books, London. Bhagwati, J. (2004), In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 36 Brecher, J. and Costello, T. (1998), Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up, South End Press, Cambridge, MS. Cairncross, F. (1997), The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Is Changing Our Lives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford. Castells, M. (2001), “Information technology and global capitalism”, in Hutton, W. and Giddens, A. (Eds), On the Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, Vintage, London. Chapman, B. (2010), “Continuing implosion of the world economy”, cited in Beckow, S., available at: http://stevebeckow.com/2010/11/continuing-implosion-of-the-world-economy/ (accessed 17 February 2011). Chomsky, N. (2003), Hegemony or Survival? America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Hamish Hamilton, London. Clegg, S. and Carter, C. (2007), “The sociology of global organizations”, in Ritzer, G. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 272-290. Dicken, P. (2007), Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, Sage, London. Dixit, A.K. and Norman, V. (1980), Theory of International Trade, Cambridge University Press, Welwyn. Dollar, D. (2005), “Globalization, poverty and inequality”, in Weinstein, M.M. (Ed.), Globalization: What’s New?, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Friedman, J. (1994), Cultural Identity and Global Process, Sage, London. Friedman, T.L. (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Anchor, New York, NY. Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Global strategy: an organizing framework”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 425-440. Hall, S. and Jacques, M. (Eds) (1989), New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s, Lawrence and Wishart, London. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985), “Do you really have a global strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, July/August, pp. 139-148. Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982), “How global companies win out”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 60, September/October, pp. 98-105. Howes, D. (Ed.) (1996), Cross-Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities, Routledge, London. Huntington, S. (1997), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Interbrand (2010), Best Global Brands: 2010 Rankings, available at: www.interbrand.com/en/ best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-2010.aspx (accessed 17 February 2011). International Organization for Standardization (2011), ISO Standards, available at: www.iso.org/ iso/iso_catalogue.htm (accessed 17 February 2011). Jain, S.C. (1989), “Standardization of international strategy: some research hypotheses”, Challenges and Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 70-79. conceptions of Johansson, J.K. (2003), Global Marketing, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA. globalization Kagan, R. (2008), The Return of History and the End of Dreams, Atlantic Books, London. Korzeniewicz, R. and Moran, T. (2007), “World inequality in the twenty-first century: patterns and tendencies”, in Ritzer, G. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 565-592. 37 Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987), The End of Organized Capitalism, Sage, London. Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 92-102. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, Routledge, London. Marcuse, H. (1964), One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Late Capitalist Society, Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1995), “Globalization as hybridisation”, in Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and Robertson, R. (Eds), Global Modernities, Sage, London. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2001), “Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of recognition”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-245. O’Byrne, D. and Hensby, A. (2012), Theorizing Global Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Ohmae, K. (1990), The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Inter-Linked Economy, HarperCollins, London. Ohmae, K. (1995a), The End of the Nation-State: The Rise of Regional Economies, HarperCollins, London. Ohmae, K. (Ed.) (1995b), The Evolving Global Economy: Making Sense of the New World Order, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Ohmae, K. (2001), The Invisible Continent: Four Strategic Imperatives of the New Economy, Harper Business, New York, NY. Panitch, L. and Gindin, S. (2003), “Global capitalism and American empire”, in Panitch, L. and Leys, C. (Eds), The New Imperial Challenge: Socialist Register 2004, Merlin Press, London. Peebles, D.M. (1989), “Executive insights: don’t write off global advertising: a commentary”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 9, pp. 73-78. Porter, M.E. (1979), “How competitive forces shape strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 137-145. Porter, M.E. (1986), “The strategic role of international marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 13-15. Ritzer, G. (1993), The McDonaldization of Society, Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Ritzer, G. (Ed.) (2007), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Robertson, R. (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, Sage, London. Roostal, I. (1963), “Standardization of advertising for Western Europe”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 15-20. Rugman, A.M. (2003), “Regional strategy and the demise of globalization”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 409-417. Schilling, H. (1992), Mass Communications and American Empire, 2nd ed., Westview Press, Oxford. CCM Schneider, S. and Barsoux, J. (2003), Managing Across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, London. 21,1 Scott-Cato, M. (2013), The Bioregional Economy: Land, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Routledge, London. Sklair, L. (2002), Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Solberg, C. (2002), “The perennial issue of adaptation or standardization of international marketing communication: organizational contingencies and performance”, Journal of 38 International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-21. Steers, R.M., Sanchez-Runde, C. and Nardon, L. (2010), Management Across Cultures: Challenges and Strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tomlinson, J. (2007), “Globalization and cultural analysis”, in Held, D. and McGrew, A. (Eds), Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, Polity Press, Cambridge. Wallerstein, I. (1974), The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, NY. Webster, F. (2005), Theories of the Information Society, Routledge, London. Wolf, M. (2004), Why Globalization Works: The Case for the Global Market Economy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Yip, G.S. (1989), “Global strategy ... in a world of nations?”, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 29-41. Yip, G.S. (1995), Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

About the authors Christopher Bond is Head of Postgraduate Programmes and MBA Programme Director at Roehampton University Business School. He teaches organizational behaviour and cross-cultural management across the management programmes in the school. He is a UK National Teaching Fellow and has published articles and chapters and delivered international conference papers, on personal and organizational development. Christopher Bond is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Dr Darren J. O’Byrne is a Principal Lecturer in sociology and human rights in the Department of Social Sciences, Roehampton University. He is the author of Human Rights: An Introduction (2002), The Dimensions of Global Citizenship (2003), Theorizing Global Studies (2011, with Alexander Hensby), and Introducing Sociological Theory (2011), plus many articles and chapters on such areas as human rights, globalization, sociological theory, and political sociology. He was Founding Chair of the Global Studies Association and convenes the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in human rights at Roehampton University.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints