Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T20:20:02.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Contesting social space in the Balkan region: the social dimensions of a “red” joint venture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2011

Mairi MacLean
Affiliation:
Exeter University Business School, UK
Graham Hollinshead
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire, UK
Christoph Dörrenbächer
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law
Mike Geppert
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter sheds light on the MNC as a contested transnational social space in the Balkan region of south-east Europe by “deconstructing” a recent “red” joint venture from the perspectives of key stakeholders, “red” referring to the location of the MNC in question in countries belonging to the former communist bloc. The organizational focus of our analysis is the Serbian brewery Weisser, the oldest brewery in the Balkans, situated near Belgrade, and recently acquired by the Turkish-owned MNC Eden; the merger having taken place in an unstable and volatile environment, compared to a “tinderbox” ready to ignite (Lee 2006a). Through examining the merger from the grounded positions of key social actors – indigenous employees, union officials, local Serbian and “westernized” managers, exposed to new market-oriented logics emanating from the west, fuelled by globalization – we discern both conflicting and consonant interests and rationalities relating to the establishment and early operations of the cross-border joint venture.

Our study is informed by the work of Zgymunt Bauman (2000; 2007; Bauman and Vecchi 2004) on identity and Pierre Bourdieu (1984; 1990a; 1990b) on the notion of “habitus.” Habitus is conceived by Bourdieu as the ingrained, socially constituted dispositions of social classes that lead actors to make choices and decisions that reproduce existing social structures and status distinctions, orienting their actions and inclinations without precisely determining them.

Type
Chapter
Information
Politics and Power in the Multinational Corporation
The Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities
, pp. 380 - 412
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, M. 2006. “Hybridizing habitus and reflexivity: towards an understanding of contemporary identity?,”Sociology 40: 511–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. 2003. Lost Geographies of Power. Oxford: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almor, T. and Hirsh, S. 1995. “Outsiders' response to Europe 1992: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence,”Journal of International Business Studies 26: 223–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. and Sonnenstuhl, W. J. 1996. “The organizational transformation process: the micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action,”Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 477–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, R. 2001. “Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations,”Organization Studies 22: 337–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. 2002. Business in the Balkans: The Case for Cross-Border Cooperation. London: Centre for European ReformGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. 2004. Wasted Lives. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. and Tester, K. 2001. Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. and Vecchi, B. 2004. Identity. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Bendle, M. F. 2002. “The crisis of ‘identity’ in high modernity,”British Journal of Sociology 53: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. 1997. “Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiatives,”Strategic Management Journal 18: 207–293.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. 1999. “The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24: 9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. 1998. “Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies,”Academy of Management Review 23: 773–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddewyn, J. 1979. “Foreign divestment: magnitude and factors,”Journal of International Business Studies 10: 21–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddewyn, J. 1983. “Foreign and domestic divestment and investment decisions: like or unlike?,”Journal of International Business Studies 14: 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottero, W. 2004. “Class identities and the identity of class,”Sociology 38: 985–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouquet, C. and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. “Managing power in the multinational corporation: how low-power actors gain influence,”Journal of Management 34: 477–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Nice, R.. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1990a. The Logic of Practice, translated by Nice, R.. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1990b. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology, translated by Adamson, M.. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1997. “The contingent value of social capital,”Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 339–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. and Rodrigues, S. 1996. “The role of social identity in the international transfer of knowledge through joint ventures” in Clegg, and Palmer, (eds.) Producing Management Knowledge. London: Sage, pp. 46–68Google Scholar
Clark, E. and Geppert, M. 2006. “Socio-political processes in international management in post-socialist contexts: knowledge, learning and transnational institutional building,”Journal of International Management 12: 340–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. and Michailova, S. (eds.) 2004. Fieldwork in Transforming Societies: Understanding Methodology from Experience. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRef
Clark, E. and Soulsby, A. 1998. “Organization-community embeddedness: the social impact of enterprise restructuring in the post-communist Czech Republic,”Human Relations 51: 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. and Soulsby, A. 1999. Organizational Change in Post-Communist Europe: Management and Transformation in the Czech Republic. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. 2006. Power and Organizations. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Crouch, C. 2005. Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. 1980. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, translated by Goldhammer, A.. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. 1998. A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delany, E. 1998. “Strategic development of multinational subsidiaries in Ireland” in Birkinshaw, and Hood, (eds.) Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development. London: Macmillan, pp. 239–67Google Scholar
Djelic, M.-L. and Quack, S. 2003. Globalization and Institutions: Redefining the Rules of the Economic Game. Cheltenham: Edward ElgarCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. 2007. “Inside the transnational social space: cross-border management and owner relationship in a German subsidiary in Hungary,”Journal of East European Management Studies 4: 318–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Geppert, M. 2006. “Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations: current debates, reframing, and contributions of this Special Issue,”Journal of International Management 12: 251–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Geppert, M. 2009. “A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France,”European Management Journal 27: 100–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C. K. 1991. “Managing DMNCs: a search for a new paradigm,”Strategic Management Journal 12: 145–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unit, Economist Intelligence, 2008. Country Report: SerbiaLondon: EIUGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research,”Academy of Management Review 14: 532–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Emerging Europe Monitor. South East Europe Monitor 2009. 16: 10
Emirbayer, M. and Johnson, V. 2008. “Bourdieu and organizational analysis,”Theory and Society 37: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferner, A. 2000. “The underpinnings of ‘bureaucratic’ control systems: HRM in European multinationals,”Journal of Management Studies 37: 521–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,FoodandDrink.com, From Turkish number one to European Player 2004 (last accessed 29 May, 2008)
Geppert, M., Williams, K. and Matten, D. 2003. “The social construction of contextual rationalities in MNCs: an Anglo-German comparison of subsidiary choice,”Journal of Management Studies 40: 617–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertler, M. S. 2003. “Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there),”Journal of Economic Geography 3: 75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoshal, S. and Westney, D. E. 1993. Organization Theory and the MNC Corporation. Basingstoke: MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Gordy, E. 2004. “Serbia after Djindic: war crimes, organized crime, and trust in institutions,”Problems of Postcommunism 51: 10–17Google Scholar
Gould, J. A. and C. Sickner 2008. “Making market democracies? The contingent loyalties of post-privatization elites in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Serbia,”Review of International Political Economy 15: 740–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The strength of weak ties,”American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1990. Die nachholende Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Hadžić, M. 2002. “Rethinking privatization in Serbia,”East European Economics 40: 6–23Google Scholar
Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. R. 1996. “Some dare call it power” in Clegg, Hardy and Nord, (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 622–41Google Scholar
Harzing, A.-W. and Sorge, A. 2003. “The relative impact of country of origin and universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multinational enterprises: worldwide and European perspectives,”Organization Studies 24: 187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E. and Pennings, J. M. 1971. “A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power,”Administrative Science Quarterly 16: 216–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinshead, G. 2006. “Educating educators in a volatile climate: the challenge of modernizing higher business schools in Serbia and Montenegro,”European Journal of Education 41: 123–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinshead, G. and Maclean, M. 2007. “Transition and organizational dissonance in Serbia,”Human Relations 60: 1151–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. R. and Boyer, R. 1997. Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. 2001. The Treuhandanstalt and Privatization in the Former East Germany: Stakeholder Perspectives. Aldershot: AshgateGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. 2003. “Reflexivity in management research,”Journal of Management Studies 40: 1279–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowitt, K. 1992. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Kaya, I. 2004. “Modernity, openness, interpretation: a perspective on multiple modernities,”Social Science Information 43: 35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostera, M. 2002. “Control: accounting for the lost innocence” in Kelemen, and Kostera, (eds.) Critical Management Research in Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 111–27Google Scholar
Larsson, R., Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J. and Sweet, P. L. 2004. “The secrets of merger and acquisition success: a co-competence and motivational approach to synergy realization” in Pablo, and Javidan, (eds.) Mergers and Acquisitions: Creating Integrative Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–19Google Scholar
Lee, E. 2006a. “Open tinderbox: toward lasting peace in the Balkans,”Harvard International Review 28: 11–2Google Scholar
Lee, R. L. M. 2006b. “Reflexive modernization vs liquid modernity vs multiple modernities,”European Journal of Social Theory 9: 355–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 3rd edn. Davis, , CA: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
Maclean, M. and Harvey, C. 2008. “The continuing diversity of corporate governance regimes: France and Britain compared” in Strange, and Jackson, (eds.) International Business and Corporate Governance: Strategy, Performance and Institutional Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 208–25Google Scholar
Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Chia, R. 2010. “Dominant corporate agents and the power elite in France and Britain,”Organization Studies 31(3): 327–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, J. I. and J. C. Jarillo 1991. “Co-ordination demands of international strategies,”Journal of International Business Studies 22: 429–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meštrović, S. G. 1994. The Balkanization of the West. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michailova, S. and Clark, E. 2004. “Doing research in transforming contexts: themes and challenges” in Clark, and Michailova, (eds.), pp. 1–18
Morgan, G. and Kristensen, P. H. 2006. “The contested social space of multinationals: varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism,”Human Relations 59: 1467–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, F. 1994. “Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization,”Organization Studies 15: 407–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, F. 1996. “National stakeholders in the global contest for corporate investment,”European Journal of Industrial Relations 2: 345–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nojonen, M. 2004. “Fieldwork in a low-trust (post-)communist society” in Clark, and Michailova, (eds.), pp. 157–76
Obradovic-Wochnik, J. 2009. “Knowledge, acknowledgement and denial in Serbia's responses to the Srebrenica massacre,”Journal of Contemporary European Studies 17: 61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmae, K. 1990. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. London: CollinsGoogle Scholar
Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State. London: Harper CollinsGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. 1973. The Politics of Organizational Decision Making. London: TavistockGoogle Scholar
Quack, S., Morgan, G. and Whitley, R. 2000. National Capitalisms, Global Competition, and Economic Performance. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ristić, Z. 2004. “Privatisation and foreign direct investment in Serbia,” South-East Europe Review for Labor and Social Affairs 2: 121–36Google Scholar
Rothman, J. and Friedman, V. J. 2001. “Identity, conflict and organizational learning” in Dierkes, Berthoin Antal, Child and Nonaka, (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 582–97Google Scholar
Sklair, L. 2002. Globalization: Capitalism and its Alternatives. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Soulsby, A. 2004. “Who is observing whom? Fieldwork roles and ambiguities in organizational case study research” in Clark, and Michailova, (eds.), pp. 29–56
Steger, T. 2004. “Identities, roles and qualitative research in Central and Eastern Europe” in Clark, and Michailova, (eds.), pp. 19–38
Sweetman, P. 2003. “Twenty-first century dis-ease? Habitual reflexivity or the reflexive habitus,”Sociological Review 51: 528–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tüselmann, H.-J., McDonald, F., Allen, M., Golesorkhi, S. and Filiou, D., 2009. “Cross-border transfer of employment relations approaches: country-of-origin effects and the level and type of industry internationalization” in Ibeh, and Davies, (eds.) Contemporary Challenges to International Business. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52–67Google Scholar
,US Commercial Service Serbia 2009. Doing Business in Serbia
Verdery, K. 1996. What was Socialism, and What Comes Next?Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vujadinović, D. 2004. “Democratic deficits in the Western Balkans and perspectives on European integration,”Journal for Institutional Innovation, Development and Transition 8: 4–22Google Scholar
Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
,World Bank 2008. Doing Business 2008

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×