|
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION |
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
Go to section: [ Contents | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Previous | Next ]
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Culture and Business
4.3 Considerations in Establishing Joint Ventures
4.4 Community-Based Partnerships
4.5 Conclusions
In an effort to improve economies of scale or scope, access or pool resources, penetrate new markets and share risks, enterprises world-wide are increasingly engaging in variety of business partnerships. Global economic and social forces over recent decades have meant that many of these partnerships span national and cultural boundaries. Where governments used to be wary of the effect of inter-firm cooperation, they are now considered beneficial to the economy and are being promoted by various policy initiatives.5 Governments themselves, increasingly participate in a variety of forms of public-private partnerships. Inter-organizational collaboration exists in a range of forms, varying in scope and degree of commitment.
For the purposes of this paper the notion of partnership suggests a mutual contribution by two entities involving shared objectives, decision-making and benefits. Contributions may be financial, institutional or intellectual.6 Parties may choose to engage in the most comprehensive of partnerships; the joint venture, or may choose from a range of non-equity alliances involving significantly less risk such as licensing, contracting or marketing and sales agreements. Increasingly, partnerships are being developed around or are incorporating economic development, environmental and social objectives.
In the past, partnerships, joint ventures in particular, have been notorious for their high level of risk and poor success rate. International, cross-cultural relationships seem to be particularly vulnerable. "Surveys suggest that as many as half of the companies with international joint ventures in developed countries are dissatisfied with their venture's performance, and that the dissatisfaction rate for ventures in developing countries is even higher."7 While scholars acknowledge that relatively little is known about the underlying causes of successful alliances, there does exist some agreement in the literature on key success factors related to business partnerships in a variety of settings.
Most literature references for this discussion of partnership involves examples from international experiences and supporting research due to the lack of similar study in Canada. The application of lessons from international literature is worthwhile in our view, however, the relevance should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the unique characteristics of the Canadian forest industry.
This section of the paper will begin with a brief discussion on culture, which will explore some of the issues around cross-cultural collaborations, specifically, those involving Indigenous Peoples as partners. Next, a summary of best practices related to joint ventures will be provided, followed by an examination of partnership with community-based entities. Finally, a general set of conclusions will be drawn based on the research.
Academics have long identified culture distance as a significant obstacle to the success of inter-cultural business partnerships. Culture distance is defined as "the extent to which the norms and values of two firms differ because of their separate national characteristics." Hofstede, a leading researcher in this area, sees culture, not necessarily bound by national borders, but as the characteristics of a group of people "that are conditioned by the same education and life experience."8 The most common dichotomy used to distinguish cultures is the individualist/collective characteristic. In general, an individualistic society is one in which members "define themselves primarily as separate individuals and make their primary commitments to themselves." In contrast, collective cultures are characterized by tight social networks and common goals and objectives.9
In the past, researchers tended to claim that collective cultures were not naturally entrepreneurial whereas individualist cultures fostered the entrepreneurial spirit. Recent research argues that "individualism and collectivism neither categorically encourage nor discourage entrepreneurship; rather they influence how its functions are accomplished."10 In particular, the author claims that,
"Individualists show proclivities for new venture formation and making major innovations. In contrast, collectivists generate variety through group-based, incremental improvements and changes. Collectivists leverage their own resources by harnessing "clanlike" affiliations, and securing the use of the resources of other firms by building close relational ties..."11
Aboriginal culture in Canada is generally considered to be collectivist while others in Canadian society can be generalized as individualist. This and other elements of the culture distance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partners can represent additional challenges to an already challenging partnership endeavour. Understanding the implications of cultural differences and designing partnerships to incorporate these differences may improve the chances of success. In Restructuring the Relationship, The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples explains business development in an Aboriginal context as follows:
"...the fundamental difference in emphasis between the Aboriginal view of economics and the beliefs of liberal capitalism relates less to the means by which wealth is created than to the appropriate distribution of resources once these have been acquired. Aboriginal cultures share a deeply embedded belief that the welfare of the collective is a higher priority than the acquisition of wealth by the individual...additional merit is gained by using one's skills to benefit the community."12
Arguably more important than culture in influencing entrepreneurial spirit, however, is the set of social circumstances that Aboriginal communities have faced over many years. The Royal Commission asserts that perhaps "too much is made of the alleged difference between the Aboriginal approach and the ways of liberal capitalism" and that:
"...the hostility toward achievement and individual effort that is felt in Aboriginal communities is often misinterpreted, particularly by outsiders, as a product of Aboriginal emphasis on the collective and the community. In fact it is part of the pathology of loss and despair - loss of lifeways, of self-reliance and self-esteem."13
Two additional points merit mention. Firstly, Aboriginal groups differ significantly from one another and can therefore not be seen as a homogenous group with a single set of values. Secondly, the development of partnerships is always situation-specific, based on a multitude of variables. For this reason "there is no "right" way to structure effort for economic activity" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Instead, cultural issues must be dealt with carefully and on a case-by-case basis. A proactive approach that acknowledges differences in culture involving education on the part of both partners is, however, undoubtedly a positive step under any circumstances.
Joint ventures represent the most comprehensive of the partnership options. Although success has been illusive in the past, "they are still seen as an effective means of business development offering numerous advantages."14 Given increasingly competitive global and domestic environments, firms are seeking ways to share risk, secure access to needed technology and resources, and enter new markets. A variety of recommendations are consistently made regarding the development and management of a cross-cultural partnership. Many of these recommendations are not limited to joint ventures but rather, should be considered within all business alliance options, although perhaps to varying degrees.
Although this point may seem obvious, this is a step that, due to time and resource constraints, is often grossly neglected. In fact "identifying and selecting a partner is possibly the most important consideration in establishing a joint venture. It also may be the most difficult and time consuming."15
Organizations contemplating partnership of any kind are well advised to realistically evaluate their own capacity for working in a cooperative environment as well as assess this capacity in any potential partner.16 Clearly, if the ability and commitment to work cooperatively is lacking from either one or both of the partners, the venture is virtually doomed for failure. Too often, firms are looking for a quick fix to an immediate problem and fail to anticipate the power sharing that inevitably must be made when working in partnership. Power sharing is often a demanding task in cross-cultural situations, resulting in an even greater need for commitment to a collaborative structure.
Rarely do both partners in an alliance or venture have identical reasons for participating in the collaboration. A multinational seeking a venture with a firm in a developing economy, for example, may be seeking out one or more of the following: profits, growth, new markets, synergistic benefits or access to resources. The local firm on the other hand, may be looking for diversification, transfer of technology, access to markets, or access to capital.17 It is worth spending time at the outset to express the objectives and expectations of both parties in order to reconcile differences and prevent dissatisfaction and misunderstanding later on.
Having an opportunity to build relationships slowly with non-equity alliances has been identified as an important way to minimize risk. It allows partners to build trust over time, assess capabilities, and provides an opportunity for partners to be exposed to the foreign culture in a relatively less pressured, lower risk environment.18 Increasing investment in smaller projects as they prove to be successful is much more desirable than writing off a large failed venture.19
Research on international joint ventures has found that culture difference is frequently a source of a breakdown in effective management communications, "sometimes leading to the eventual dismemberment of the venture."20 Some concrete actions can be taken to mitigate these potential problems some concrete actions can be taken.
Financial and operational expertise is not sufficient when managing a cross-cultural business partnership. Successful implementation of a joint venture "requires both an understanding of the business and the partners' cultures."21 Culture training for managers has been largely neglected in the past. Emphasis is increasingly being placed on this important aspect of cooperative venture management. Managers of cross-cultural partnerships should be sensitized to "the impact of culture on behaviour and have some background on the social, economic, political environment and history" of the partner. Also critical, is understanding one's own culture and the implications it has on one's own behaviour and relationships with others.
Research has concluded that "knowledge of the cultural orientation of the country and its relationship to the strength of the social and structural bonds serve as key predictors of the long-term commitment in cross national business relationships."22 To demonstrate long-term commitment companies are well advised to work together toward ensuring a mutual understanding of each partner's culture and the possible influences on the business environment. The relationship building and goodwill created as a result of collaboration in this area can help partners work through differences or business hardships as they arise rather than prematurely dissolving the partnership.
In designing the venture, partners must look at a variety of options related to equity structure, staffing and decision-making responsibility. Decisions related to these critical design elements should be made jointly by the partners. The optimal control structure for cooperative ventures depends on the nature and motivations behind the venture as well as the environment in which they will operate.
Partners must choose between a dominant, shared or independent control structure.
Independent
These ventures "are relatively free of the interference from either parent."23 This type of venture is quite rare. While, in theory, joint ventures are considered to be autonomous businesses, in practice, "numerous interdependencies inevitably exist between the joint venture and the parent companies."24 In the case of the independent venture, all strategic and operating decisions come from neither of the two parents, but rather this would be the responsibility of the management of the new entity, without interference.
Dominant
Under this design, the dominant parent's executives would make all of the strategic and operating decisions. This structure manifests itself when multi-nationals enter into partnerships with firms in developing economies as a response to "pressure from the host government or when the passive partner sees its involvement and participation as a purely financial investment with an acceptable rate of return."25
Shared
In the case of shared management ventures, both partners play an active role in the management of the joint business. This is not to say, however, that all decisions are jointly made: "they are in fact not being jointly made, but rather divided or split between the partners based on knowledge, skill, experience and understanding of the particular issue."26 This type of partnership is most common in manufacturing situations with one parent supplying technical expertise and the other providing access to and knowledge of the local market.
Researchers argue that, although more complicated, the shared control structure is preferable when collaborating with developing economies. It is critical to allocate decision making authority at a very early point, when the venture is being first being defined. A clear understanding of the expectations and contributions of each party should be a priority.
Some key decisions will inevitably have to be made jointly. Achieving a consensus on such decisions can be a significant challenge but it is believed that the value of the two sets of experience, the knowledge and skills of the two partners, and the increased information available often make consensus worth the trouble. Such an approach requires "people who are sensitive to the partners' needs and culture and who are willing to understand, learn and be persuaded, as well as being persuasive."27
As an example, Iisaak Forest Resources, a recent joint venture between Ma' Mook Natural Resources Ltd. (First Nation) and MacMillan Bloedel has been designed with a shared management approach. Some of the management objectives are designed into the shareholder agreement including "management and staffing, means of providing contracts for First Nations and the local community, and targets for First Nation employment and training." Any business objectives involving expanded scale or scope of the company's operations are "captured in the unanimity provisions" and must therefore be reached by consensus.
Recent literature asserts that "excessive concern with control can be counterproductive, that the management of alliances is critically concerned with attitudes and interpersonal relationships, and that attention should be paid to trust."28 Although ownership, control and other legal elements of collaboration are important structural elements of a partnership, they can undeservedly take attention away from "the even more important, dynamic, but less tangible, human relationships." In fact, in increasingly competitive and uncertain environments strong partnerships characterized by trust and reciprocity will be seen more and more "as a strategic resource much like other resources as products and technology."29 One author claims that a venture's "success and failure lie ultimately in the ability of the partners to keep their trust and respect for each other as they advance this business relationship into world markets and the demands of the future."30
In the case of Iisaak Forest Resources, a facilitator was hired to help with the creation of the venture. The facilitation process spanned several years and "was an important part of building trust and equalizing bargaining power between the parties."31 However, the Iisaak venture is relatively young and its long-term success is yet to be assessed.
Many agreements include detailed requirements for the conflict resolution, even though some fear that it indicates a pessimistic view of the prospects of the joint venture.32 Some disagreement is virtually inevitable in complex relationships such as joint ventures and should be recognized by designing a mechanism to address such conflict. This gives partners the tools to proactively respond to and resolve differences, perhaps even preventing dissolution.
The design of the venture should, however, also include an agreement on how the partnership will end in the case of serious difficulty. This should be done while "heads are cool and goodwill abounds."33 Such an agreement generally allows either partner to buy the other's share in the venture at a named price. The second partner generally has the option sell the shares at the named price or buy the other partners shares at the same price.
The shareholder agreement for the Iisaak joint venture mentioned above includes a provision that gives MacMillan Bloedel the right to "terminate its interest in IFR for a fair value buy-out of its shares." This right can be exercised if the business relationship becomes unsatisfactory and IFR's objectives are "substantially" limited.34
Partners in a collaborative venture often have varying motivators and objectives for the partnership. As indicated in relation to the selection of partners, both parties must understand these differing objectives. While partnerships are clearly expected to provide mutual benefits, managing and monitoring these benefits is often neglected.
As significant as determining the appropriate control structure of the venture is the need to clearly identify each partner's expected payoffs so that in addition to determining the various divisions of decision making authority and partner duties, a "win-win" situation should be designed into the venture. Success often depends on the partners' long-term needs being satisfied in a reciprocal relationship. "Need refers to the requirement for skills or resources in the venture such as access to raw materials, distribution channels, labour, political connections, and local knowledge."35 Agreement on both sides as to the needs of each partner puts both parties in a better position to negotiate should they feel dissatisfied with the venture.
Both partners should take responsibility for monitoring the payoffs of the venture. They should be aware, not only of their own benefits or lack thereof, but also the payoffs to the partner. In order to ensure long-term success of the venture, hardship must be shared.36 This is an important element of maintaining a trusting relationship and open lines of communication between partners. In addition, management should be flexible and open to making changes in the joint venture agreement as the environment and comparative advantages of partners change. The agreement should be a seen as a "living document."37
Even a thoroughly planned venture needs concerted, ongoing effort in managing the relationship to increase chances of success. Operating the venture "requires commitment by the corporation to persevere, and to work to achieve its target and not to quit as the inevitable problems appear." A corporation can commit to: financial support; customer and partner support; product integrity; company employees; understanding the politics, economics and culture of partners; the building of trust and sharing of information; the building of cooperative relationships.38
While commitment of managers over the long term is considered a key success factor, particular emphasis is placed on close monitoring early on. This provides an important opportunity to solve problems before they escalate as well as demonstrating management commitment and good will toward the partnership.
Too often partners enter into joint ventures with unrealistic time frames for expected payoffs. Researchers have found that alliances often fail because a joint venture is not the appropriate choice for the scope and scale of the issue being addressed. As a result, joint ventures have been described as "permanent solutions to temporary problems." Before even seeking a joint venture partner, managers must determine if, in fact, the current need or problem requires such a long-term solution.
Time also plays a very important role in mitigating cultural difficulties in cross-cultural partnerships. Research has shown that, as joint ventures increase in longevity, the intensity of cultural differences is moderated. "As relationships continue members in each organization become more and more enmeshed in the social networks of the other and their relationship becomes more binding, stable, and predictable."39 One author has even suggested that "if a culturally-unstable international joint venture is invested with the means for long-range development, it can be expected to attain its objectives..." and that "...time is the major factor in the success of a joint venture."40
Clearly reported relationships and a well-defined communications strategy between partners are important elements of effective joint venture management. Clear mechanisms for monitoring and control of partners are necessary although often difficult for partners to agree upon. Personal relationships and trust will likely play an important role in developing mutually acceptable mechanisms. Some options commonly used include:
One way to ensure that partnerships remain strong is to schedule regular meetings among senior managers to review performance, express concerns and resolve problem areas. Communication must flow in two directions and must remain the foundation on which the relationship stands.
Experience in recent years has indicated a significant untapped potential for collaboration between small scale, community-based business and medium to large-scale commercial enterprise in developing economies. Where economic development in such environments was once left to government programs and non-governmental organizations, the important and perhaps more effective role of private enterprise is now being recognized. A study by the International Labour Office asserts that the contributions that corporations can make to a small business in a developing economies are "far wider - and often more precisely targeted and cost effective - than the many inputs provided by government organizations responsible for [small business] development."41
Beyond the traditional "bottom line" motivations for companies engaging in business alliances, collaboration with developing economies often represent additional, more socially oriented objectives. Motivations behind such programs may, for example, include:
Regardless of the mix of expressed objectives, companies almost invariably "take the position that there must be a significant degree of direct financial and/or commercial benefit" to be derived from collaborations with firms in developing economies.43
Cameco Corporation, the largest uranium producer in the world, has been very successful in stimulating economic development of Aboriginal communities in Canada by promoting partnerships. In addition to an employment program that has made the company one of Canada's leading employers of Aboriginal people, Cameco has undertaken an aggressive business development strategy involving both "northern" employment requirements and the facilitation of joint ventures intended to result in direct and significant participation by Aboriginal people. The benefits of these efforts to the company are described as follows:
"...we gained legal compliance - we are meeting our obligations as set out in our surface lease agreements. We gained some high moral ground - we are extending opportunities to the people and communities most impacted by our operations. We gained an extremely valuable relationship with a very important constituent group of people...we also gained a close working relationship with government - we have been able to demonstrate to governments at all levels that cooperation is the key. And finally, we have gained a very important strategic advantage in what is a highly competitive global business - we are now using our experiences with [A]boriginal people in northern Saskatchewan to secure development opportunities in other parts of the world."44
Partnerships between parties experiencing dramatically different levels of economic wealth and security clearly face an added challenge in maintaining successful and productive ventures. A number of recommendations are made with regard to creating and nurturing these types of partnerships that can be relayed to the Canadian case of Aboriginal-non-Aboriginal collaborations.
As previously indicated, there are a variety of reasons, most of which involve commercial benefit, for companies to seek collaboration with businesses and communities in the developing economies in which they work. It is in their best interest, particularly from a public perspective, to seek out creative ways to work with small business. Companies working in developing environments are well advised to work proactively to build their own capacity to work with new businesses in order to reap both social and economic rewards.
A previous study by the Institute On Governance uncovered a variety of innovative partnerships in the Canadian forestry industry.45 Some of these include: the development of a loan fund, insistence on joint venture partnership when letting contracts, assistance with bank financing, lending of equipment to small entrepreneurs and adjusting payments to ease cash flow difficulties, as well as training and hiring programs.
Some innovative partnerships in developing countries that have been undertaken in recent years have included a clear set of social and economic objectives. For example, corporate collaborations with community-based small businesses have been designed around the following objectives:
These objectives allow companies to reap the benefits that result, as is the case for Cameco, whose concerted efforts created partnership opportunities and improved business development in the north. Benefits such as improved relations with government and communities, a perception of social responsibility and increased competitiveness world-wide as a result of innovative activities in Canada.
A lack of management capacity is often a major obstacle for business partnerships in developing economies. Successful collaborations in the developing world have included the provision of middle and upper management on secondment at nominal cost to the local small business. This approach was described as having "the dual advantage of offering independent management training opportunities to rising staff to show their mettle, whilst at the same time demonstrating to the government, and the public at large, that [the company] was a socially responsible organization willing to make an innovative contribution to development."47 The emphasis on encouraging the development of positive working relationships with local governments and the sense of contribution to communities are increasingly being considered significant benefits from partnerships in addition to the more immediate, purely financial payoffs.
The need for explicit and sustained managerial commitment is critical in the context of partnership with developing economies just as it is with most other partnership types. In order to prevent neglect of the partnership and to ensure ongoing observation, companies should do the following:
Cameco Corporation has taken just such an approach with regard to their work with Aboriginal communities in Canada.
"Our northern and [A]boriginal business development programs are now reflected in our corporate policies. They are even stated in our vision and values statements, and included in our corporate performance targets. This is the key to making everyone in the organization accountable. For example, the general manager...has these issues reflected directly in his operations annual performance targets. We track and report our performance on a monthly basis."49
It is important for companies engaging in this type of collaboration to recognize that special problems requiring special attention may arise. Some companies have even created new departments to deal specifically with small business partnerships.
Although there may be an expressed desire to collaborate, companies may find such an initiative difficult to put into operation. A lack of understanding of the constraints under which a potential partner might work in addition to cultural barriers may act as obstacles to partnership initiation. Other organizations may be in a position to facilitate understanding and partnership between organizations.
Although there is often little that a small business in a developing economy can do on its own to pursue partnerships, industry associations encompassing such businesses may be in a position to play an important role. While it is recognized that such associations are often short of funds, they may have the means to:
Charitable, non-governmental organizations (NGO) may be valuable as intermediaries that can facilitate collaboration and communication between potential partners. They may also be in a position to offer specific skills and training in areas such as business and management. In addition, "an articulate business-oriented NGO could play an invaluable and possibly ongoing role in providing the necessary bridge between the two parties."
Governments often also have a role to play in such partnerships. Although there has been a recent push toward minimizing government control, there are areas in which the government may make valuable contributions.
Financial incentives for partnership in developing environments can be important motivators for collaboration. Although such incentives can not be relied upon to ensure success or longevity of a partnership, they may be a significant catalyst in encouraging partnership where there are perceived risks related to culture and level of economic development.
Legal requirements in the form of affirmative action programs and local hiring requirements may trigger a pattern of local hiring and partnership that moves well beyond the minimal requirements as trust and relationships are built and skills and capacities developed.
Some researchers recommend that governments adopt a broker-type role in promoting partnerships. Workshops on the following types of topics could be useful in this regard:
The literature review revealed a variety of recurring themes with respect to partnerships and collaboration across cultures. These issues appeared repeatedly in relation to joint ventures, partnerships in developing economies and literature on a variety of forms of collaboration. The following points can be considered "musts" when designing and implementing partnerships, particularly those in multicultural environments:
Partnerships should be tailored to each situation based on the unique set of skills, resources and the environments of the parties involved. In the case of Aboriginal community-forest industry partnership, parties are well advised to look beyond traditional options for collaboration and seek out innovative and unique alternatives for taking advantage of opportunities. Some examples of such alternatives are provided in section 5 of this paper: Making Partnerships Work: Lessons from the Case Studies.
It is not useful to get bogged down in cultural questions that have little relevance to the business realities of a partnership. However, it is useful to have an awareness of key characteristics of cultures involved and the impacts these might have on relationships, negotiations and the ongoing operation of the partnership. An effort toward understanding the culture of partners also goes a long way toward demonstrating good will and commitment to the collaboration.
When designing an effective partnership, it is critical that each partner conveys motives, objectives and expectations to the other. This may prevent disagreement and dissatisfaction later on and will also provide a basis upon which the partnership can be redesigned if the needs of one or both partners are not being met.
Allocating responsibility for the partnership illustrates commitment to the initiative and provides a clear line of accountability for the actions of each party and the success of the collaboration. Sustained support at high levels is also key and demonstrates the importance of the partnership to all involved.
Although this may be a more intensely felt priority in some cultures than others, trust is an essential component of any successful partnership. Gradually cultivating relationships and increasing degrees of intensity of collaboration and commitment provides a solid foundation upon which to build a partnership.
Building in value for both partners can result from agreement on objectives and expectations on both sides. Unexpected payoffs and hardships may occur, however, and should be split fairly among partners. Parties are well advised to come to an agreement on how these would be shared early on.
5 Magun, Sunder. 1996. The Development of Strategic Alliances in Canadian Industries: A Micro-Analysis, Industry Canada web site http://strategis.ic.gc.ca.
6 Zussman, David. Partnerships: A Moving Target, Insights: Public Management Research Centre, Vol. 4, No. 1. Spring 1999.
7 Beamish, Morrison and Resenzweig. International Management: Text and Cases - Third Edition, Irwin, 1997.
8 Williams, J.D., S.L. Han and W.J. Qualls. 1998. "A Conceptual Model and Study of Cross-Cultural Business Relationships, Journal of Business Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 135-143.
9 Adler, Nancy J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.
10 Tiessen, J.H. 1997. Individualism, Collectivism and Entrepreneurship - A Framework for International Comparative Research, Journal of Business Venturing, September, vol. 12. No. 5, pp. 367-384.
11 Ibid.
12 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples - Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship - Part 2. Minister of Supply and Service Canada, Canada Communication Group Publishing, Ottawa.
13 Ibid.
14 Beamish, Morrison and Resenzweig. International Management: Text and Cases - Third Edition, Irwin, 1997.
15 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review. Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
16 Ibid.
17 Data, Deepak K. "International Joint Ventures: a framework for analysis", Journal of General Management, vol. 14, No. 2. Winter 1988, pp. 78-91.
18 Beamish, Morrison and Resenzweig. International Management: Text and Cases -Third Edition, Irwin, 1997.
19 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review, Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
20 Data, Deepak K. "International Joint Ventures: a framework for analysis", Journal of General Management, vol. 14, No. 2., Winter 1988, pp. 78-91
21 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review, Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
22 Williams, J.D., S.L. Han and W.J. Qualls. 1998. "A Conceptual Model and Study of Cross-Cultural Business Relationships", Journal of Business Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 135-143.
23 Data, Deepak K. "International Joint Ventures: a framework for analysis", Journal of General Management, vol. 14, No. 2. Winter 1988, pp. 78-91.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review, Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
27 Ibid.
28 Nooteboom, Bart and Hans Berger. "Effects of Trust and Governance on Relational Risk", Academy of Management Journal. vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 308-338.
29 Williams, J.D., S.L. Han and W.J. Qualls. 1998. "A Conceptual Model and Study of Cross-Cultural Business Relationships, Journal of Business Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 135-143.
30 Findlay, Caroline. 1999. " IISAAK FOREST RESOURCES LTD. -A Joint Venture Company between Ma'Mook Natural Resources Ltd. and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd, Insight, February 25.
31 Ibid.
32 Miller, Glen, Jaspersen and Karmokolias. IFC Discussion Paper Number 29 -International Joint Ventures in Developing Countries: Happy Marriages? Statistics for 1970-1995, International Finance Corporation, http://www.ifc.org.
33 Beamish, Morrison and Resenzweig. International Management: Text and Cases - Third Edition, Irwin, 1997
34 Findlay, Caroline. 1999. " IISAAK FOREST RESOURCES LTD. -A Joint Venture Company between Ma'Mook Natural Resources Ltd. and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Insight, February 25.
35 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review, Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
36 Beamish, Morrison and Resenzweig. International Management: Text and Cases - Third Edition, Irwin, 1997.
37 Miller, Glen, Jaspersen and Karmokolias. IFC Discussion Paper Number 29 -International Joint Ventures in Developing Countries: Happy Marriages? Statistics for 1970-1995, International Finance Corporation,www.ifc.org
38 Lane, Henry W. and Paul W. Beamish. 1990. "Cross-cultural Co-operative Behaviour in Joint Ventures in LDCs", Management International Review, Special Issue 1990, pp. 87-102.
39 Williams, J.D., S.L. Han and W.J. Qualls. 1998. "A Conceptual Model and Study of Cross-Cultural Business Relationships", Journal of Business Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 135-143.
40Meschi, Pierre-Xavier. "Longevity and Cultural Differences of International Joint Ventures: Toward Time-Based Cultural Management, Human Relations, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 212-228.
41 Wright, David L. Overseas Development Institute, London. 1992. A study of the employment effects and other benefits of collaboration between multinational enterprises and small-scale enterprises, International Labour Office, Geneva.
42 A recent report by The Institute On Governance entitled Public Good, Private Gain - A Study of Canadian "Exemplary" Companies and Their Relations with Government explores the idea of socially responsible firms and what this means to both the private and public sectors.
43 Wright, David L. Overseas Development Institute, London. 1992. A study of the employment effects and other benefits of collaboration between multinational enterprises and small-scale enterprises, International Labour Office, Geneva.
44 Jamie McIntyre. Cameco Corporation. 1999. Presentation to FSIN Business Forum '99, February 1999.
45 The Institute On Governance. 1998. Exploring the Relationship Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian Forest Industry: Some Industry Perspectives, for Industry, Economics and Programs Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada.
46 Wright, David L. Overseas Development Institute, London. 1992. A study of the employment effects and other benefits of collaboration between multinational enterprises and small-scale enterprises, International Labour Office, Geneva.
47 Wright, David L. Overseas Development Institute, London. 1992. A study of the employment effects and other benefits of collaboration between multinational enterprises and small-scale enterprises, International Labour Office, Geneva.
48 Ibid.
49 Jamie McIntyre. Cameco Corporation. 1999. Presentation to FSIN Business Forum '99, February 1999.
50 Wright, David L. Overseas Development Institute, London. 1992. A study of the employment effects and other benefits of collaboration between multinational enterprises and small-scale enterprises, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Go to section: [ Contents | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Previous | Next ]
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
This page was updated: May 16, 2002 | Contact NAFA |
Website feedback | Site updated by Soleica Inc.
