Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
but we consider the actual shape as the legacy of past actions. The various forms that
a network can take reveal the particular strategies according to its organizational
structure, its localizations or the control of its capital and employees (Figs.
10.1
and
10.2
).
The networks of the multinational food companies studied in this research show a
strong centralization of power around the headquarters of Nestlé, Unilever and Kraft
Foods (Figs.
10.1
and
10.3
), where the headquarters owns an isolated subsidiary in
each country. There are some branches organized within national spaces in countries
that have a large market size. For example, Nestlé Deutschland AG and Nestlé
France SA reflect market-oriented strategies with a strong national dimension. There
is thus a strong constraint for national food network deployment, which can be
interpreted to result from both a strong constraint related to the various markets
in which these firms are located, with a strong cultural embeddedness of food
consumption, and a constraint to food commodities that have a short life span, with a
relatively low export capacity. All of these constraints on the agro-food sector hinder
the internationalization of the groups. Thus, the networks of agrofood companies
are highly organized according to geographical area. On the other hand, the motor
industry networks present various structures. The power is distributed related to the
governance organization and history of the firm. The three selected multinational
companies are a good examples of different types of network structure. The Toyota
group (Fig.
10.2
) is mainly divided into five groups (Denso, Aisin Seiki, Toyota
Motor Europe, Toyota Tsusho and BT industries). The headquarters holds five semi-
autonomous groups that manage clearly delineated activities. The French group
PSA is very centralized, except for its equipment group, Faurécia. The headquarters
has quasi-direct control of its subsidiaries. In contrast, the Fiat group is very
decentralized into twelve main divisions due to its governance structure and its
diversification of activities (from agricultural machines to finance holdings). Even
if these networks present different types of structure, the subsidiaries are regrouped
around cluster activities. This type of structural organization is characteristic of a
typical production-oriented governance.
10.2.2.2
Betweeness Centrality
: Centrality of the Subsidiaries
in the Network
The differences between the shapes of the networks can be evaluated by the
distribution of the power inside each of them (measured by betweenness centrality)
(Fig.
10.3
). This metric was defined by Freeman in 1977 (
Freeman
,
1977
,
1979
).
Betweenness centrality describes the control exerted by an individual on the
interactions between the other actors of the network. The more often an individual
is on a path that other individuals must use to communicate, the more central the
network is
Lazega
(
1998
). To compare the distribution of power in the corporate
networks, (we recorded) this metric for all of the subsidiary companies in each
corporate network.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search