The introduction of Corporate Social Responsibility, particularly those found within the global south’s extractive and manufacturing sectors, have been met with political and transnational firm apathy through its failed initial attempts to establish CSR through social licenses. Nevertheless, with the prompt unraveling of its heightened disregard for negative human and environmental implications voiced by civil society organizations (CSOs), CSR frameworks have voluntarily, or by form of societal pressure, become increasingly appealing to multinational corporations (MNCs) across the globe. Such is the case of Bolivia, where accountability measures found within CSR systems reach an impasse due to its inherent lack of transparency in transactions and widespread corruption networks across governmental branches. Nevertheless, global agendas pushed by intergovernmental organizations have had significant impact when informing, incentivizing, and cooperating with MNCs to promote sustainable development, such as the United Nation’s recent 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Global Compact, and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Academic emphases increasingly stress the imperative role that CSOs have in holding MNCs accountable for their human and environmental impacts by demanding the necessary conditions for a successful self-sustainable process to be implemented through respected feedback loops.

CSR adoption has proven to leverage intangible capabilities to consumers, more specifically within the grocery store and soft drink department. These include, but are not limited to, increased access to information, comprehension of client concerns, development of eco-friendly systems, facilitation of recycling procedures, advanced technological assimilation, and low purchase risk from products that lack transparency. Ultimately, adopting CSRs is appealing to consumers as it signals a business’ willingness to not only invest in its brand and its workers from all ranks, but also the desire leverage future benefits for its customers, society, and the environment at large at the expense of a chosen reform’s cost. These reforms are proven to have high financial returns in the long-run by affecting customers’ levels of satisfaction and loyalty. Nevertheless, in areas where customers have limited budgets and do not have the luxury of purchasing more ethically and sustainably produced products, the marketing tools that CSR provide cannot be accessed and, in turn, disincentivize corporate structures to reform. This is the case of Bolivia, where blue collar worker’s social licenses are jeopardized as the assumed institutional responsibilities primarily held in the global north that guarantee a reasonable level of citizen participation are inexistent. This is especially true for extractive sectors, where mining centers in Potosi and Oruro maintain worrisome levels of poverty and inequality intergenerationally.

Ultimately, the incentive leverage that customer consciousness and satisfaction has in MNCs decision making process to adopt CSR methods varies across the good governance assumptions between the global north and south. Taking Bolivia as an extreme synecdoche of the global south’s MNC experience within extractive and manufacturing sectors, the lack of funding and acknowledgement of independent CSOs and grassroot movements correlates with a failure to politically legitimize its citizens interests regarding human and environmental rights. Within the two Bolivian manufacturing industries mentioned above, translating customer satisfaction into three key CSR categories, them being recycling convenience, eco-friendly practices, and ethical behavior, is proven to gradually increase its customer loyalty and, hence, its long-term profitability. Within its extractive sector, CSOs have the option to connect themselves with Intergovernmental Organizations informational platforms, such as the Inter-American Development Bank, or  Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) to legitimize their claims on a regional scale and pressure local government officials to adopt clearer terms of engagement with MNCs operational execution.

References

Campero, Cecilia, and Jonathan R. Barton. “‘You Have to Be with God and the Devil’: Linking Bolivias Extractive Industries and Local Development through Social Licences.” Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 34, no. 2, 2014, pp. 167–183., doi:10.1111/blar.12260.

Herbas Torrico, B., Frank, B. & Arandia Tavera, C. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility (2018) 3: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0029-0

Huber, Evelyne. “The Key to Evo Morales’ Political Longevity.” Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 16 Feb. 2018, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/bolivia/2018-02-14/key-evo-morales-political-longevity.

“IDB Group-Civil Society, Wiconnect3.” Inter-American Development Bank , www.iadb.org/en/civil-society/home.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press, 1998. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt5hh13f.

The transnationalisation of state ownership through manufacturing and financial Multinational Corporations (MNCs) has facilitated the opportunity of firms to shift production sites, integrate themselves in complex supply chains that have complex regulatory mechanisms, and avoid states attempts to domestically tax and regulate their activities according to local law’s. As a response to the international political economy’s complex imposition of global capitalism, the United Nation’s (UN) has launched the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Having altered its highly contested and isolationist Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the African continent, its new ambitious global agenda outlines seventeen interdependent categories that embody the most accurate multidimensional representation of how “sustainable development” can be manifested to date. Nevertheless, in order to achieve these goals within more impoverished states, governments must tailor their allocation of resources according to their most dire necessities. Nevertheless, these goals hold contradictions and assumptions that counter governments interests of establishing domestically self-sustainable secondary sectors and, therefore, allow tertiary sectors the opportunity to flourish. Challenging the role MNCs play within the SDGs can allow decision makers to better format their relationships with transnational actors and fulfill the interests of not only their countries, but the environment and their citizens.

Considering how a total of 147 MNCs control a total economic sum of approximately 40 percent of transnational firms gains globally, states become increasingly economic and politically submissive to MNCs operational interests. Vulnerable states within the global south that experience the highest levels of inequality are chained to receiving MNCs on their requested terms and conditions as they risk business flying out to neighboring countries offering similar standardized prices in good and services . The paradoxical relationship between states and MNCs is seen in their useful exchange between labor/resources and economic stimulus respectively, yet continuously maintain antagonistic interests and incentives when fulfilling their end-goals. By using the SDGs as a lens to see how the UN balances such interests while protecting countries sovereignty, we see inherent contradictions in goal 8: “prompting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”. Sub-target 8.2 dictates that higher economic productivity should be achieved through “diversification, technological upgrading and innovation”, while sub-target 8.3 incentivizes the advancing of policies oriented to “support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro, small and medium sized enterprises”. The dilemma lies in the perspective that certain developing countries that have yet to access their own true competitive advantage become overwhelmed by welcoming MNCs abroad, taking over certain markets domestically. The economic assumptions hanging on creative destruction is a strong one, yet when analyzing Brazil, Japan, and India’s holistic positive experience with import substitution industrialization, one may contest the appropriateness behind the time and place in which opening particular segments of the economy might be beneficial to completing such SDGs on an international scale through MNCs adoption. Understanding the implications that endowing chunks of domestic markets to MNCs can have in the fulfillment of other SDGs is crucial, as giving them the increasing oversight over states’ means of production may enhance its global interconnectedness, but often at the expense of other SDGs that are paramount to assuring the rightful provisions of environmental and human rights as seen in SDG 3 (good health and well-being), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action), 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), among more. State’s elite complacency with MNCs short-term economic fruit has demonstrated to have long-term repercussions in establishing nationwide opportunities. This, in turn, forces s state to jump phases of its proper self-development and steals entrepreneurs from the possibility of advancing their own ideas tailored to their own states and communities history, culture, and alternative preferences entrenched into communities .

References

Babic, Milan, et al. “States versus Corporations: Rethinking the Power of Business in International Politics.” The International Spectator, vol. 52, no. 4, 2017, pp. 20–43., doi:10.1080/03932729.2017.1389151.

“Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform.” United Nations, United Nations, 2015, sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg8.

Viederman, Stephen. “Multinational Corporations Are Incompatible with Sustainable Development.” Global Policy Forum, 23 June 1997, www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-environment/the-rio-process/45488-multinational-corporations-are-incompatible-with-sustainable-development.html.

MNCs are beginning to look to Latin America as a major geographical locus for investment. Multinational oil and gas companies in particular are starting to take advantage of a resurgence in neoliberal governments supporting more deregulatory policies. The most significant of these companies is British Petroleum (BP), which is known for already having a notorious past of being involved in regime overthrows and environmental disasters, as well as the Norwegian multinational energy company, Equinor ASA, which has partaken in oil drilling practices in the Arctic that many environmental groups have criticized as being unethical. Executives from Equinor have announced that “30 percent of its oil output will come from the region by 2030” (teleSur, 2019). BP is looking especially towards Argentina as a major player in the future of oil and gas extraction projects. This is in large part because of the presence of the staunchly neoliberal Macri government.

Two years ago, the recently elected Macri administration revised the section of country’s Collective Labor Agreement regarding “unconventional gas extraction” as a means to foster a novel economic paradigm of “efficiency and productivity” (teleSur, 2019). A large geologic formation with large shale deposits called the Vaca Muerta (Dead Cow) is what BP is considering as the main site of the potential drilling (teleSur, 2019). This move, however, presents looming uncertainty of the integrity of the natural landscape around there. As yet, there has been no indication of any substantial interest, on behalf of BP and the Macri government, in environmental consulting. There are nature reserves on the Chilean side of the border close to Vaca Muerta that very well could be affected by the expansion of these new projects. Again, oil MNCs like BP have not had a good record on environmental concerns, so unless some sort of regime is put into place, there is no telling what might happen to that area in the near future. On top of that, as per Macri’s push towards a multi-billion dollar loan with the IMF while salary increases have stagnated, there has been an immense increase in general strikes (Al Jazeera, 2018).

There is no doubt that Latin America is following the much of the world in becoming more amicable with MNCs, but it seems as though the living conditions of everyday people are not being considered as much. Moreover, neoliberalism in Latin America has a history of slowing down overall growth, but political elites are convincing voters that time will be different because other nations are also cosying up to them. Nonetheless, as with the case of Argentina, worker strikes will proliferate while this dynamic takes place, which shows that prioritizing shareholders’ interests is not a sustainable political motive.

Al Jazeera. (2018). Workers paralyse Argentina in third general strike. Retrieved from
aljazeera.com.

TeleSUR. (2019). Amid Surge in Neoliberalism, Oil Giants Prey on Latin America.
Retrieved from telesurenglish.net.

For the past 15 years, Elon Musk has built Tesla from a small electric vehicle (EV) startup to becoming a $46 billion company and the forerunner in the EV industry. However, despite their massive success in American and European markets, Tesla is yet to see a breakthrough in the Chinese market. China’s EV industry has grown rapidly in the previous years, producing more than half of global electric vehicles in 2018, while the US only produced 20 percent. The Chinese government has taken initiative in growing this market, providing over $60 billion in direct subsidies since 2012 to lower the cost of electric vehicles for Chinese consumers. Currently China is definitely the biggest market for EV’s, and for Tesla to succeed it is necessary to establish its presence in the country.

The biggest problem that Tesla faces in China is that its products are extremely expensive relative to its competitors due to transport costs and large import taxes which has been worsened by the trade tensions between the US and China. For example, a Tesla Model S that runs for $80,000 in the US will cost around $140,000 in China after taxes. In comparison, local EV companies in China sell their cars for as low as $10,000-$20,000, a sizable difference that makes it nearly impossible for Tesla to compete against.

Tesla is desperate in tapping the Chinese EV market and is aware of the problems they face, that is why they have worked towards building a Gigafactory in Shanghai in order for them to be more competitive in the domestic market. Once they are able to produce their cars domestically, Tesla will be able to establish a local supply chain, become eligible for EV tax credits provided by the government, and more importantly, evade the costs of duties and tariffs that have been inflating the prices of their cars.

Tesla’s case in China is a textbook example of the Tariff-Jumping Hypothesis. Musk believes that the biggest obstacle to Tesla’s success in China is affordability, and the only was to access the massive demand in the country is by producing domestically to make their products affordable. By doing this, Tesla is able to avoid tariff barriers and dramatically reducing the costs of their cars, making them more competitive against local EV manufacturers.

References:
Collins, J. (2019, March 05). Tesla’s Problems In China Highlight Its Biggest Threat: Negative Working Capital. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2019/03/05/teslas-problems-in-china-highlight-its-biggest-threat-negative-working-capital/#7c132c2b2b3c

Kolodny, L., & Evers, A. (2019, February 12). Tesla is staking its future on China – here’s what it’s up against. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/tesla-faces-steep-competition-in-china.html

Disasters keep on affecting people and families around the world. While some are natural disasters, others are man-made. This is apparent in the BP Gulf Coast oil spill, a preventable man-made catastrophe. From April to July 2010, in excess of 185 million gallons of unrefined petroleum spilled into the Gulf Coast. This crushed the indigenous habitat including wild life and the lifestyle for Gulf Coast people group. As a corporate realm speaking to the biggest oil organization on the planet, BP must be practice dependable business morals. This is the exercise learned for BP. It is likewise the exercise learned for government and endeavor with respect to essential precautionary measures against wellbeing. Security turns into a key topic in preventable fiascos. By executing methodologies in security BP can improve social duty, ethical strategies, and ecological effect of unrefined petroleum extraction and refinery.

Safety is a key strategy to address issues of social and moral obligation. Not only BP ought to improve security practices, the legislature should screen these safety procedures. It attempts to decrease hazards and limit dangers. This isn’t just basic to avert mishaps it is additionally a principal system for business progression. The raw petroleum that spilled into the Gulf and destroyed the earth speaks to a considerable misfortune in oil supply and benefits. Furthermore, BP lost specialists, hardware, stock, honesty, and open regard. Taking basic measures to improve security and diminish dangers to coherence is proposed by experts and researchers around the world. Be that as it may, BP neglected. They give an exemplary case of what can happen when to associations dismiss security, morals, and social duty.

“BP – The Cost of Ignoring Corporate Social Responsibility.” Cara MacMillan. Accessed April 05, 2019.

“BP Leak the World’s Worst Accidental Oil Spill.” The Telegraph. August 03, 2010. Accessed April 05, 2019.

Evaluating the opportune moment to scale up a business is essential but equally paramount to the success of a business operation is knowing when to scale down. The case for multinational companies operating out of Venezuela – a country despite having the world’s largest oil reserves, has an economy in complete shambles – is a great example of this quandary. This has been exacerbated by recent U.S. economic sanctions which prohibits any American institutions from lending more money to Venezuela. MNCs such as Clorox, Kimberly-Clark, General Motors, Harvest Natural Resources and General Mills have removed their operations from Venezuela entirely, abandoning their assets or selling them for cheap. While walking away from an unpredictable landscape is often regarded as the safe choice, these cases are also where high risk, high reward opportunities could be hidden.

MNCs that have chosen to remain in Venezuela are slowly scaling back their operations due to a scarcity of raw materials and decreased demand for their goods and services. This is complicated by strict labor laws in Venezuela that forbid mass layoffs. MNCs usually work around this by giving many of their employees a paid leave of absence or incentivizing their voluntary termination. With reduced schedules and cutbacks in production as well as a limited selection available in the market, Colgate, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, Fiat Chrysler are among 150 other MNCs that have stayed back in Venezuela. In certain instances, these companies have attempted to support their employees and provide assistance.

Other places in Venezuela, MNCs have struggled to adapt to other government commands, including strict cost guidelines on products and services that the Venezuelan government deems as necessities such as milk and soap. The prices cannot keep up with constant inflation. Colgate recently adapted to this with the production of a price-controlled toothpaste that is packed in brown cardboard that is more cost-effective than its normal red packaging.

If Venezuela ever were to recover from its current economic frenzy, the MNCs that have continued to be present there will be in position to benefit strongly. The ability and freedom to adapt to changing circumstances of a high-stakes economic landscape are dominant.

Bibliography:

Valerio, Pablo González AlonsoAlejandro. “When Should Multinationals Move Back into Venezuela?” Harvard Business Review. September 01, 2017. Accessed April 04, 2019.

Pons, Corina. “From Unilever to Ford, Companies in Venezuela Cling on by Cutting…” Reuters. August 31, 2018. Accessed April 04, 2019.

For the past few decades it is clear that multinational corporations have truly evolved into something much greater than an economic actor. In her article Big Business and the State, Susan Strange argues how MNCs plays a central and not a peripheral role in the International Political Economy. Similarly, Peter Evans in his article The Eclipse of the State suggests that dominance of private power has caused an institutional shift that questions the capacity of states to exert their authority as MNCs have become stateless. These arguments presented by Strange, Evans and various other scholars suggest that MNCs have developed into an entity beyond the capacity of the state.

However, despite the amount of influence and power an MNC has, some MNCs (depending on the nature of its business) are not immune to the constantly changing expectations of social standards. Private politics is the method in which activist groups and NGOs push corporations to conform to these standards. Although ‘social standards’ are very broad, some of the main focuses include the effect on the environment, employment malpractices (in every step of the production process), animal welfare, and safety. The ultimate goal for activist groups is to get corporations to change its practices to follow the demands that are set by the social standard. Some of the methods activists use in order to achieve their goals include forming unions to organize a strike, boycotting a firm’s products, leveraging capital markets, and more recently, using social media to expose a firm’s malpractice to the public which could intensify the first three methods.

In most cases, private politics is an effective way to keep MNCs in check and keep them accountable for their actions. It is effective because it can greatly impact a firm’s operations and its profitability, which are extremely important especially for its shareholders. An example of this can be seen with the case of McDonald’s and the obesity epidemic in the US. Many Americans blamed fast food chains such as McDonald’s to be the primary cause of obesity in the US as it perpetuates unhealthy eating habits. The documentary film Super Size Me gave the public a closer look at McDonald’s’ contribution to the issue and its increasingly influential role in the lives of American consumers. In response to the issue, McDonald’s decided to diversify its menu to more healthy options such as salads and apple slices, and as a result, McDonald’s even became the biggest purchaser of apples in the US consequently after the change.

Private politics is not necessarily an entirely negative thing for corporations as it could also prove to be beneficial in the long run. Another example for this would be with the automotive industry and the constant pressure from activists to reduce carbon emissions which was further worsened with the Volkswagen emission scandal. Private politics in this case pushed automakers to become more innovative and create sustainable options for vehicles. This is evident today where electric cars have become the new trend in the automotive industry. Overall, private politics can be beneficial for both the firm and the consumer as it forces MNCs to be accountable and it also helps them to innovate in the process of conforming to social norms.

References:
Diermeier, D., & Policy Research Initiative (Canada). (2009). Governing the global economy: The role of private politics. Ottawa, Ont.: Policy Research Initiative.

Evans, P. (1997). The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization. World Politics,50(01), 62-87. doi:10.1017/s0043887100014726

Strange, S. (1993). Big Business and the State. Multinationals in the Global Political Economy,101-107. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-22973-4_6

Fiji Water is more than just the trendy artesian water it wants consumers to believe it is. Around since 1996 and now part of The Wonderful Company (makers of POM Wonderful, Wonderful Pistachios, amongst other “wonderful” products), Fiji Water has carried a pristine bottled water reputation, more expensive than other bottled waters. Mostly under the radar when it comes to news about MNCs, Fiji Water received great publicity and fanfare after this year’s Golden Globe Awards in January sparked a viral moment thanks to the “Fiji Water girl”. The model, hired to showcase Fiji Water on the red carpet, appeared to photobomb numerous celebrity photos leading to plenty of internet reactions and what one marketing group estimated a total of $12 million in brand exposure. As mentioned in my previous blog, MNCs love this kind of viral  attention – it’s free marketing for them. Of course, this kind of press can also serve as a useful distraction from an MNCs shadier practices.

In this case, Fiji Water ought to be examined in how it practices business in Fiji. For years, the company bottled water in/from Fiji employing Fijians. However, in 2010 after the Fijian government enacted tax hikes on MNCs extracting water in Fiji, the company threatened to leave for New Zealand. This is a classic move MNCs make. Fundamental in the difference between MNCs and states as actors in the international political economy is the relative mobility MNCs enjoy. That is, if they dislike the policies in a host or home state, they can move. States cannot move. Somewhat surprisingly, Fiji Water acquiesced and remained operating in Fiji despite the tax hike. However, that is not the full story. Fiji Water has also been accused of being complicit in a strict and repressive military government in power in Fiji while also restricting local access to its water source leaving Fijians to drink dirty water.

These kinds of business practices are absolutely not limited to Fiji Water. Exploitation and authoritarianism tolerance in the developing world by MNCs marketing primarily to the developed world is commonplace. While regulatory work ought to be done on international business practices, prospects of that actually happening look bleak with the capitalist, neoliberal system in place. We as individuals certainly have more power than we think to affect systems-change, but that still requires mass mobilization. In the meantime, conscious consumerism is important to recognize the MNCs practicing shady business. When considering sharing the viral Fiji Water girl moment with our networks, we ought to think twice.

Watershed moments like the Cambridge Analytica scandal have strongly impacted public perception of personal data, drawing attention to the degree of unregulated power multinational tech giants like Facebook possess. Unlike more conventional MNC’s, technology giants like Facebook and Uber have prided themselves in resisting regulation, arguing that the slow, constrictive and often outdated regulatory frameworks cannot apply to such rapid technological innovation. As market preferences change, Facebook has continuously expanded its user base, purchasing WhatsApp and Instagram and dominating the market with more than 2.3 billion active users. However, the Facebook revenue model, which relies heavily on user data and preferences used in the companies advertising platform, has been continuously bogged down by controversy. As consumers continue to engage with such platforms and consume more information than ever before, misinformation, manipulative algorithms, and a lack of policing have become primary propellants behind calls for regulation. There is no doubt that regulation must exist in some form, and it seems that the time of MNC’s like Facebook operating largely unhindered by regulatory frameworks is over. Platforms tend to be heavily monetized through advertisement, and corporate dynamics are virtually unavoidable. Content has become increasingly targeted, and with that, comes the added issue of agenda pushing and content designed to be misleading and divisive. The use of big data to absorb and process a large amount of personal data revealed by our preferences and usage of such platforms also makes targeting and influencing views a natural process; a process that has already drawn significant criticism through scandals like Cambridge Analytics and the Brexit scandal; both of which involved manipulating Facebook user data.

By holding such platforms unaccountable, we as consumers support the notion of markets being able to regulate frameworks when interacting with personal data in an ethical manner and there is a clear indication that profit-driven incentives have overtaken any semblance of responsibility and accountability. Mark Zuckerberg recently called for the “stricter regulation of harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability” online, and it seems with this, will likely come a new wave of social responsibility initiatives from technology companies like Facebook. The EU and the United States have long deliberated on ways to mitigate and address this issue. In the age of rapid technological innovation, it seems that many of the companies that would seemingly be at the forefront of corporate social responsibility have instead, long benefited from a severe lack of accountability. The destructive capability of the misuse of data, as seen in recent controversies surrounding Facebook, can and should be likened to controversies that arise from more conventional MNC’s like Royal Dutch Shell and Nestle; corporate social responsibility must be binding to all sectors, and it seems that long needed reform may soon be on its way.

Works Cited:

Afoko, Carys. “Government Can’t Regulate Facebook – It’s up to All of Us | Carys Afoko.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Apr. 2019, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/01/government-regulate-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-social-media.

“Mark Zuckerberg Says He Wants More Regulation for Facebook.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 4 Apr. 2019, www.economist.com/business/2019/04/06/mark-zuckerberg-says-he-wants-more-regulation-for-facebook.

Wattles, Jackie, and Donie O’Sullivan. “Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Calls for More Regulation of the Internet.” CNN, Cable News Network, 30 Mar. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/tech/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-regulation/index.html.

The United States is the world’s largest multinational company with the largest number, largest scale, highest output value, the strongest capital, the most advanced technology, and the strongest influence. In recent years, US multinationals account for at least one-third of the world’s top 500 companies. In the process of promoting economic globalization, American multinational corporations have also promoted the democratic expansion and export of the United States from both the main and the objective aspects. It is an important participant and promoter of the United States to seek global hegemony strategy through democratic export. Robert Gilpin, a famous American scholar and founder of international political economy, believes that the international status and nuclear superiority of multinational corporations and the US dollar constitute the three cornerstones of the United States seeking global hegemony since the end of the Second World War. Multinational corporations have played the following roles in the US democratic export strategy: Multinational corporations are an important promoter of the internationalization of American ideology in the context of economic globalization. Western countries such as the United States regard globalization as not only the globalization of the economy, but also the internationalization of bourgeois ideology. Former US President Bill Clinton once made it clear that international interdependence in the context of globalization is not only a threat to the values ​​of the United States and Americans. On the contrary, the influence of American values ​​such as freedom, self-determination and market economy has been continuously strengthened. Transnationalization is a concentrated expression of the level of globalization. The “global expansion of US multinationals has led to the global expansion of the US democratic system”. Multinational corporations have become a “quasi-political institution” in the third wave of democratization promoted by Western countries. By controlling information and communication, they exercise enormous power over the location and personnel, promote democracy and expand US capital. The influence of doctrine played an important role in promoting action, exacerbating the complexity of democratic politics in the context of globalization.Multinational corporations are the new carrier for the United States to promote democratic export strategies and public diplomacy. The famous international relations scholar Carl Dojic pointed out: “Public diplomacy is the eternal theme of modern diplomatic thoughts, while multinational corporations shoulder the heavy responsibility of spreading the values ​​and ideas of a country to the world, and cannot be ignored in the process of realizing national interests. The role of “.” In the US public diplomacy and the promotion of democratic export strategy, the government, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other multi-actors have assumed their respective roles, and multinational corporations have become one of the multiple roles of public diplomacy. An important new carrier has a new function of “corporate diplomacy.” Former Spanish diplomat Sean Rodin pointed out that diplomacy is a form of “new diplomacy” implemented by “postmodern countries” in the context of globalization. The role of transnational corporations is no longer just about pursuing commercial interests, but also becoming active in the diplomatic field. Diplomacy has become one of its important functions. The core purpose of multinational corporations to participate in public diplomacy and promote democracy is to win the company’s power and social legitimacy in the era of globalization. In the process, the company seeks to represent a certain concept, country and its related values, and strives to actively adjust the company’s value. Adapt to social values ​​and better expand relationships with other stakeholders. Multinational corporations have played a public diplomacy role in three aspects: political mobilization, agenda shaping, and information communication.

reference:

David L.Richards，“Money Witha Mean Streak`?”International Studies Quartcrly(2001)219-239.

nited Nations Confcrenccon Tradcand Development,WorldInvestment Report 2002,New York and Geneva,2002