The macro-level debate on the economic impact of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is still unsettled. This article explores micro-level evidence by examining what Fortune Global 250 firms themselves report about their economic impact. Such reporting embodies corporate attempts to account for their economic implications, in addition to the environmental and social aspects of their activities that have traditionally received more attention in the context of corporate responsibility. Firms' reports turn out to provide a rich illustration of the mechanisms through which MNEs (can) affect economic development (including sheer size, technology transfer, and backward linkages) and of how such impacts are being operationalized and measured. The authors test which MNEs are most likely to disclose information on the various mechanisms and find that it is influenced by region, sector, and size but not by profitability. Implications of this exploratory study for research and practice are discussed.
Adams, C.A., Hill, W.-Y., & Roberts, C.B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behavior?British Accounting Review, 30, 1-21.
3.
Aitken, B., & Harrison, A. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review , 89, 605-618.
4.
Aitken, B., Harrison, A., & Lipsey, R. (1996). Wages and foreign ownership: A comparative study of Mexico, Venezuela and the United States. Journal of International Economics, 40(3/4), 345-371.
Alfaro, L., & Rodríguez-Clare, A. (2004). Multinationals and linkages: Evidence from Latin America. Economia, 4(2), 113-170.
7.
Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T.E., & Hughes, K.E. II, (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29, 447-471.
8.
Anderson, G. (2001, September). Spillovers from FDI and economic reform . Paper presented at the Northeast Universities Development Consortium Conference, Boston.
9.
Baldwin, R., Braconier, H., & Forslid, R. (1999). Multinationals, endogenous growth and technological spillovers: Theory and evidence (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2155). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research .
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental disclosure research: Review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 1-44.
12.
Blomström, M., Globerman, S., & Kokko, A. (1999). The determinants of host country spillovers from FDI: Review and synthesis of the literature (SSE/EFI Economics and Finance Working Paper No. 239). Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
13.
Blomström, M., & Wolff, E. (1994). Multinational corporations and productivity convergence in Mexico. In W. Baumol, R. Nelson, & E. Wolff (Eds.), Convergence of productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence (pp. 263-284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.-W. (1998). How does FDI affect economic growth?Journal of International Economics, 45, 115-135.
BT. (2004). Social and environmental report. London: Author.
17.
Carkovic, M., & Levine, R. (2000). Does FDI accelerate economic growth? (Working Paper). Minneapolis/St. Paul: University of Minnesota.
18.
Caves, R. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Business & Society, 44(4), 415-441.
20.
Chung, W., Mitchell, W., & Yeung, B. (2003). Foreign direct investment and host country productivity: The American automotive component industry in the 1980s. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 199-218.
21.
Coca-Cola. (2004). Towards sustainability: Coca Cola citizenship report. Atlanta, GA: Author.
22.
Davidson, W., III, & Worrell, D. (2001). Regulatory pressure and environmental management infrastructure and practices. Business & Society, 40(3), 315-342.
23.
De Mello, L.R. (1999). FDI-led growth: Evidence from time series and panel data. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 133-151.
24.
Djankov, S., & Hoekman, B. (1999). Foreign investment and productivity growth in Czech enterprises. World Bank Economic Review, 14, 49-64.
25.
Dow Chemical. (2004). The Dow global public report 2003. Midland, MI: Author.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77.
28.
Haddad, M., & Harrison, A. (1993). Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment? Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics, 42, 51-74.
29.
Harrison, A., & McMillan, M. (2003). Does direct foreign investment affect domestic credit constraints?Journal of International Economics, 61(1), 73-100.
30.
Hbos. (2004). Taking care of tomorrow: The HBOS corporate responsibility report 2004. Edinburgh, UK: Author.
31.
Ito-Yokado (2004). Corporate social responsibility annual report 2003: We wish to remain a trusted company known for our integrity. Tokyo: Author.
32.
Kawai, H. (1994). International comparative analysis of economic growth: Trade liberalisation and productivity. The Developing Economies, 17(4), 373-397.
33.
Kokko, A. (1994). Technology, market characteristics and spillovers . Journal of Development Economics, 43, 279-293.
34.
Kokko, A., Tansini, R., & Zejan, M. (1996). Local technological capability and spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. Journal of Development Studies, 34, 602-611.
35.
Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the triad: Convergence or divergence?Management International Review,45(1), 145-166.
36.
Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R., & Westdijk, B. (2006). Poverty alleviation as business strategy? Evaluating commitments of frontrunner multinational corporations. World Development, 34(5), 789-801.
37.
Konings, J. (2000). The e fect of direct foreign investment on domestic firms: Evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2586). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
38.
Kpmg. (2005). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2005. Amsterdam : KPMG Global Sustainability Services.
39.
Line, M., Hawley, H., & Krut, R. (2002). The development of global environmental and social reporting. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(1), 69-78.
40.
Liu, X., Parker, D., Vaidya, K., & Wei, Y. (2001). The impact of foreign direct investment on labour productivity in the Chinese electronics industry. International Business Review, 10, 421-439.
41.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D.A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from business self-representations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514.
42.
Markusen, J. (1995). The boundaries of multinational enterprises and the theory of international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 9, 169-189.
43.
McIntyre, J., Narula, R., & Trevino, L. (1996). The role of export processing zones for host countries and multinationals: A mutually beneficial relationship? TheInternational Trade Journal, 10(4), 435-466.
44.
Mencinger, J. (2003). Does foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth?Kyklos, 56(4), 491-508.
45.
Meyer, K.E. (2004). Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 259-276.
46.
Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265-282.
47.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1998). Open markets matter: The benefits of trade and investment liberalisation. Paris: Author.
48.
Pemex. (2004). Report on sustainable development 2003. Mexico City, Mexico: Author.
Ramírez, M. (2000). Foreign direct investment in Mexico, a cointegration analysis. Journal of Development Studies, 37(1), 138-162.
52.
Ramus, C.A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing?Business & Society, 44(4), 377-414.
53.
Rasiah, R. (1994). Flexible production systems and local machine-tool subcontracting: Electronics components transnationals in Malaysia. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18, 279-298.
54.
Rodrik, D. (1999). Trade policy and economic growth: A skeptic's guide to cross-national evidence (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2143). London: Center for Economic Policy Research .
Sharfman, M., Shaft, T., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). A model of the global and institutional antecedents of high-level corporate environmental performance. Business & Society, 43(1), 6-36.
57.
Shell. (2004). The Shell report 2003: Meeting the energy challenge—Our progress in contributing to sustainable development. The Hague, Netherlands/ London: Author.
58.
Sjöholm, F. (1997a). Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment: Evidence from establishment data (SSE Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 211). Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
59.
Sjöholm, F. (1997b). Productivity growth in Indonesia: The role of regional characteristics and direct foreign investment. Economic Development and Cultural Changes, 47, 559-584.
60.
Smarzynska, B. (1999). Technological leadership and foreign investors' choice of entry mode (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2314). Washington, DC: World Bank.
