One of the greatest points of controversy in the recent literature in political economy is the extent to which “shareholder value” oriented institutional investors are drivers of change in national systems of corporate governance. This article argues that the key question is how management cultures shape managerial responses to pressures for change from capital markets. Empirical evidence for this argument is provided through an examination of changes since the mid-1990s at the “Big Three” German integrated chemical/pharmaceutical companies: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. Despite facing similar demands from shareholder-value oriented investors, management at the three companies have pursued quite different strategies. The end result, however, may be the same from a production regime perspective, that is, the long-run withdrawal of “Big Pharma” from Germany as a location for R&D due to a more favorable institutional framework in the US.
BäumlerE. (1963). Ein Jahrhundert Chemie. Econ Verlag, Düsseldorf.
2.
BayerA. G. (2000). Namen, Zahlen, Fakten 2000/2001. Bayer AG, Leverkusen.
3.
BeckerS.MenzW.SablowskiT. (1999). Ins Netz gegangen: Industrielle Beziehungen im Netzwerk-Konzern am Beispiel der Hoechst AG. Industrielle Beziehungen, 6, 9–34.
4.
AntalA. Berthoin (2001a). The transformation of Hoechst into Aventis. Case Study A: The challenges facing the new CEO. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin und Henley Management College. Unpublished manuscript.
5.
AntalA. Berthoin (2001b). The transformation of Hoechst to Aventis. Case B: How Dormann used evolution to achieve revolution. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB) and Henley Management College. Unpublished manuscript, in collaboration with Meinolf Dierkes, Camilla Krebsbach-Gnath and Ikurjiro Nonaka.
6.
BeyerJ. (2002). Deutschland AG a.D.: Deutsche Bank, Allianz und das Verflechtungszentrum großer deutscher Unternehmen. MPIfG Working Paper 02/5, Cologne.
7.
Boston Consulting Group (1999). The Pharmaceutical Industry into its Second Century: From Serendipity to Strategy, Boston Consulting Group.
8.
BrinkkötterH.-O. (1999). Aktienprogramme der BASF Aktiengesellschaft.
9.
‘BOP’ für Obere Führungskräfte–‘Plus’ für die Belegschaft.
10.
CarlinW.SoskiceD. (1997). Shocks to the system: The German political economy under stress. National Institute Economic Review, 159, 57–76.
11.
CasperS. (1999). National Institutional Frameworks and High-Technology Innovation in Germany. The Case of Biotechnology. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin.
12.
CasperS.LehrerM.SoskiceD. (1999). Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6, 5–24.
13.
CasperS.VitolsS., (Eds.) (1997). The German model in the 1990s: Problems and prospects. Special Issue of Industry and Innovation, 4, June 1997, 1–14.
14.
DavisS. M. (1984). Managing Corporate Culture. Ballinger, Cambridge MA.
15.
DoreR. (2000). Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism: Japan and Germany Versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
16.
DormannJ. (1993). Geschäftssegmentierung bei Hoechst. zfbf, 45, 1068–1077.
17.
DrewsJ. (1999). In Quest for Tomorrow's Medicines. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
18.
EckertS. (2000). Konvergenz der nationalen Corporate Governance-Systeme?: Ursachen und Internationalisierungs-wirkungen der Denationalisierung der Corporate Governance großer deutscher Aktiengesellschaften am Beispiel der Hoechst AG. In: zu Knyphausen-AufseßD. (Ed.), Globalisierung als Herausforderung der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 95–135.
FroudJ.HaslamC.JohalS.WilliamsK. (Eds.) (2000). Shareholder value and the political economy of late capitalism. Special Issue of Economy and Society, 29, 1–179.
21.
GrantW.PattersonW.WhitstonC. (1988). Government and the Chemical Industry. A Comparative Study of Britain and West Germany. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
22.
HallP. A.SoskiceD., (Eds.) (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills CA.
24.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, London.
25.
HöpnerM. (2001). Corporate Governance in Transition. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Cologne.
26.
JacksonG. (1998). The origins of the stakeholder firm: The historical evolution of corporate governance in Germany and Japan. Paper prepared for the conference Germany and Japan in the 21st Century: Strengths Turning into Weaknesses?. Japanisch-Deutsches Zentrum Berlin, January 22–24, 1998.
27.
JacksonG.VitolsS. (2001). Between financial commitment, market liquidity and corporate governance: Occupational pensions in Britain, Germany, Japan and the USA. In: EbbinghausB.ManowP. (Eds.), Comparing Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy and Political Economy in Europe, Japan and the USA. Routledge, London.
28.
JürgensU.NaumannK.RuppJ. (2000). Changes in German corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29, 54–79.
29.
KädtlerJ.SperlingH. J. (2002a). The power of financial markets and the resilience of operations: Argument and evidence from the German car industry. Competition and Change, 6, (page no's to be added).
30.
KädtlerJ.SperlingH. J. (2002b). Globalisation, financialisation and car manufacturing. Competition and Change, 6, (page no's to be added).
KotterJ. P.HeskettJ. L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. Free Press, New York.
33.
KrohnH.LangH.-G. (1989). Geschichte der Farbwerke Hoechst und der chemischen Industrie in Deutschland. Verlag 2000, Offenbach.
34.
LandauR.AchilladelisB.ScriabineA., (Eds.) (1999). Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing Human Health. Chemical Heritage Press, Philadelphia.
35.
MainzerJ.MuthJ. (1994). Leistungsorientiertes Entgeltsystem bei Hoechst. Arbeitgeber Lohn- und Gehaltsstruktur, 23, 850–853.
36.
MarkovitsA. (1986). The Politics of the West German Trade Unions. Strategies of Class and Interest Representation in Growth and Crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37.
MenzW.BeckerS.SablowskiT. (1999). Shareholder-Value gegen Belegschaftsinteressen. Der Weg der Hoechst-AG zum “Life-Sciences”–Konzern. VSA-Verlag, Hamburg.
38.
N. N. (1997). Wir mußten schnell handeln. manager magazin, 42–49.
39.
N. N. (1999). Employment Germany–BASF deal secures jobs and promotes training. European Industrial Relations Review, 19–21.
40.
NeukirchenH.WilhelmW. (2000). Unternehmen–Warum Bayer solo bleiben will Breites Kreuz. manager magazin, 30, 109–119.
41.
PfeifferH. (1986). Großbanken und Finanzgruppen: Ausgewählte Ergebnissse einer Untersuchung der personellen Verflechtungen von Deutscher, Dresdner und Commerzbank. WSI Mitteilungen, 7, 473–480.
42.
PfeifferH. (1993). Die Macht der Banken. Die personellen Verflechtungen der Commerzbank, der Deutschen Bank und der Dresdner Bank mit Unternehmen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
43.
PorterM. (1992). Capital Choices. Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC.
44.
ProwseS. (1994). Corporate Governance in an International Perspective: A Survey of Corporate Control Mechanisms Among Large Firms in the US, the UK, Japan and Germany. Bank for International Settlements, Basle.
45.
RichardsA. (1998). “Connecting performance and competitiveness with finance: A study of the chemical industry”. In: AroraA.LandauR.RosenbergN. (Eds.), Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
46.
RubachM. J.SeboraT. C. (1998). Comparative corporate governance: Competitive implications of an emerging convergence. Journal of World Business, 33, 167–184.
47.
RuessA. (2001). In Ganzheit bewahren–Der Vorstand lässt sich von der Börse nicht unter Druck setzen: Der Traditionskonzern soll ein Konglomerat bleiben. Wirtschaftswoche, 68–70.
48.
SchloteS. (1997). Die Kraft der leisen Töne. manager magazin, 88–101.
49.
SchweitzerS. O. (1997). Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
50.
StreeckW. (1992). Social Institutions and Economic Performance: Studies of Industrial Relations in Advanced Industrialized Countries. Sage, London and Beverly Hills.
51.
VitolsS. (1995). German Banks and the Modernization of the Small Firm Sector: Long-term Finance in Comparative Perspective. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin.
52.
VitolsS. (2001). Varieties of corporate governance: Comparing Germany and the UK. In: HallP. A.SoskiceD. (Eds.), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 337–360.
53.
VitolsS.CasperS.SoskiceD.WoolcockS. (1997). Corporate Governance in Large British and German Companies: Comparative Institutional Advantage or Competing for Best Practice. Anglo German Foundation, London.
54.
WojcikD. (2001). Change in the German Model of Corporate Governance: Evidence from Blockholdings, 1997–2001. Department of Geography and Environment, University of Oxford. Unpublished paper.
