Multinationals as Vectors of Corporate Governance Improvement in Emerging Economies in Eastern Europe: A Case Study

  • Nadia AlbuEmail author
  • Ioana Lupu
  • Raluca Sandu
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


Emerging economies are characterized by a reduced level of transparency and accountability of their business environment. Previous research on corporate governance practices in these economies has highlighted the difficulties of implementing corporate governance codes, the reduced level of compliance with these codes and the reluctance of local businesses to change the manner in which they are managed. In this context, multinational corporations (MNCs) are often perceived as “knowledge transfer” agents contributing to the improvement of local practices. However, the transfer is not unilateral, but it should be rather seen as a process of mutual transformation and adaptation. The aim of this chapter is to investigate the role of multinationals in improving corporate governance practices in emerging economies. We conduct a case study on the privatization of Petrom, the largest company listed on the Romania's Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE). The case suggests that the alignment of Petrom’s practices with the new owner’s (Austrian company OMV) vision and strategy, besides contributing to superior performance and accountability of the company itself, led to a significant improvement of the local corporate governance. This is a story of successful privatization which sheds light on the mechanisms of globalization and on how economic progress is obtained.


Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Governance Annual Report Enterprise Resource Planning System Corporate Governance Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abe, N., & Iwasaki, I. (2010). Organisational culture and corporate governance in Russia: A study of managerial turnover. Post-Communist Economies, 22(4), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., & Yip, G. S. (2004). Corporate governance and globalization: Toward an actor-centered institutional analysis. In A. Arin, P. Ghemawat, & J. E. Ricard (Eds.), Creating value through international strategy (pp. 55–77). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Albu, N., Albu, C. N., Bunea, S., Calu, D. A., & Gîrbină, M. M. (2011). A story about IAS/IFRS implementation in Romania – An institutional and structuration theory perspective. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 1(1), 76–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annual Report. (2004). Petrom’s annual report. Accessed 12 June 2010.
  5. Annual Report. (2005). Petrom’s annual report. Accessed 12 June 2010.
  6. Annual Report. (2006). Petrom’s annual report. Accessed 12 June 2010.
  7. Annual Report. (2007). Petrom’s annual report. Accessed 7 May 2011.
  8. Becht, M., Bolton, P., & Röell, A. (2005). Corporate governance and control. ECGI Working paper series in, Finance, 2, Accessed 15 Sept 2013.
  9. Black, B. S., de Carvalho, A. G., & Gorga, E. (2012). What matters and for which firms for corporate governance in emerging markets? Evidence from Brazil (and other BRIK countries). Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(4), 934–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boytsun, A., Deloof, M., & Matthyssens, P. (2011). Social norms, social cohesion, and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.Google Scholar
  12. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Pohl, G. (1997). Ownership and corporate governance. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Policy Research Working Paper 1737. World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Cojocar, A. (2013) Industria trece printr-un val de închideri care afectează creşterea economică. Care sunt cauzele dezindustrializării de după’89 şi unde s-a greşit? Am privatizat prea mult sau prea puţin? De ce nu am atras destui noi investitori? (in Romanian) [The industry undergoes a wave of shut-downs which affect the economic growth. What are the causes of de-industrialization after’89 and what went wrong? Have we privatized too much or not enough? Why did we not attract more investors?], Ziarul Financiar, 7 Mar 2013.Google Scholar
  14. Corporate News. (2006). Petrom launches a new line of fuels [10 Apr 2006], Accessed on 2 Feb 2008.
  15. Costello, A. O., & Costello, T. G. (2004). Corporate governance in multinational corporations. Midwest Academy of Management annual conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  16. Cuc, S., & Kanya, H. (2009). Corporate governance – A transparency index for the Romanian listed companies. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 2(1), 60–66.Google Scholar
  17. Curentul. (2006). Garda Naţională de Mediu "arde" Petromul [in Romanian]. Accessed 15 June 2011.
  18. Denisova, I., Eller, M., Frye, T., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2012). Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 40(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Djankov, S., & Murrell, P. (2002). Enterprise restructuring in transition: A quantitative survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(3), 739–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyck, A. (2001). Privatization and corporate governance: Principles, evidence, and future challenges. The World Bank Research Observer, 16(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Earle, J. S., & Sapatoru, D. (1994). Incentive contracts, corporate governance, and privatization funds in Romania. Atlantic Economic Journal, 22(2), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ezzamel, M., & Xiao, J. (2011). Accounting in transitional and emerging market economies. European Accounting Review, 20(4), 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gołębiowska-Tataj, D., & Klonowski, D. (2009). When East meets West: corporate governance challenges in emerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe – The case of Polish Aggregate Processors. Post-Communist Economies, 21(3), 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Lupu (Ioan), I., & Sandu, R. (2010). Legitimacy strategies in the annual reports – What turn to social responsibility in post-privatization context. 33rd European Accounting Association (EAA) Annual Congress, Istanbul [working paper].Google Scholar
  26. Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mennicken, A. (2008). Connecting worlds: The translation of international auditing standards into post-Soviet audit practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mickiewicz, T. M. (2009). Hierarchy of governance institutions and the pecking order of privatization: Central-Eastern Europe and Central Asia reconsidered. Post-Communist Economies, 21(4), 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moilanen, S. (2007). Knowledge translation in management accounting and control: A case study of a multinational firm in transitional economies. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 757–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olimid, L., Ionaşcu, M., Popescu, L., & Daniel, V. (2009). Corporate governance in Romania. A fragile start. The Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, Athens, 5–6 Nov 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Omran, M. (2009). Post-privatization corporate governance and firm performance: The role of private ownership concentration, identity and board composition. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(4), 658–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Przybyłowski, M., Aluchna, M., & Zamojska, A. (2011). Role of independent supervisory board members in Central and Eastern European countries. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 8(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rahman, M. (2009). Corporate governance in the European Union: Firm nationality and the ‘German’ model. Multinational Business Review, 17(4), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Răileanu, A. S., Dobroţeanu, C. L., & Dobroţeanu, L. (2011). Probleme de actualitate cu privire la măsurarea nivelului de guvernanţă corporativă în România (in Romanian) [Current issues in measuring the level of corporate governance in Romania]. Audit Financiar, 2011(1), 11–15.Google Scholar
  36. Rondinelli, D. A. (2002, Winter). Transnational corporations: International citizens or new sovereigns? Business and Society Review, 107(4), 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rugraff, E., & Hansen, M. W. (2011). Multinational corporations and local firms in emerging economies: An introduction. In E. Rugraff & M. W. Hansen (Eds.), Multinational corporations and local firms in emerging economies (pp. 13–47). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). Foreword. In G. Roland (Ed.), Privatization: Successes and failures. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Young, P. T. (2010). Captured by business? Romanian market governance and the new economic elite. Business and Politics, 12(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziarul Financiar. (2007). Petrom: The closing down of the refinery won’t have a major impact on the results, 30 May 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Rouen Business SchoolRouenFrance
  3. 3.SKEMA Business SchoolUniv Lille 2 Nord de FranceLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations