Multinationals
in sentence
216 examples of Multinationals in a sentence
According to the United Nations, there are roughly 21,500
multinationals
based in emerging markets.
In the telecommunications sector, there are now a half-dozen emerging-market
multinationals
in the global top ten.
Kenya’s Safaricom is transforming the market with its M-Pesa mobile-banking service, just as Indian outsourcing
multinationals
such as TCS and Wipro have done.
These emerging-market
multinationals
are not only disruptively innovative; they are also massively frugal, making them lethal competitors.
As a result, reverse innovation by OECD
multinationals
is now common practice.
Indeed, the OECD Fortune 500
multinationals
now have nearly 100 R&D centers based in emerging markets, mainly in China and India.
The regulation’s impact could be bolstered by two other proposals: automatic exchange of tax information among jurisdictions and a requirement that
multinationals
report revenues on a country-by-country basis.
Like Silicon Valley-based initiatives, the project unites academia, talent-rich local companies, and
multinationals
behind a common goal – in this case, to build the world’s largest radio telescope.
A recent McKinsey survey of
multinationals
based in the US and Europe found that, on average, these companies derive only 18% of sales from developing economies.
Chinese
multinationals
with recognized brands will begin to appear, just as they did in Japan and Korea.
They will compete with
multinationals
from a wide range of countries, and will become architects of global supply chains.
To meet global demand for 7.2 million metric tons of chocolate annually,
multinationals
like Hershey rely on millions of cocoa farmers, each of whom farms a tiny plot, often 1-2 hectares (2.5-5 acres).
Third, with a turn inward, China would start to miss out on investment and know-how from the
multinationals
currently operating in its economy.
America’s
multinationals
tend to be large, capital-intensive, research-intensive, and trade-intensive, and they are responsible for a substantial and disproportionate share of US economic activity.
In that year, the average compensation of the 22.2 million US workers employed by US
multinationals
was $68,118 – about 25% higher than the economy-wide average.
The particularly high domestic shares for R&D and compensation indicate that US
multinationals
have strong incentives to keep their high-wage, research-intensive activities in the US – good news for America’s skilled workers and the country’s capacity for innovation.
Moreover, US manufacturing companies that were not
multinationals
slashed their employment by 3.3 million, or 52%, during the same period.
A growing body of research concludes that labor-saving technological change and outsourcing to foreign contract manufacturers were important factors behind the significant cyclically-adjusted decline in US manufacturing employment by both
multinationals
and other US companies in the 2000’s.
So, while US
multinationals
may not have been shifting jobs to their foreign subsidiaries, they, like other US companies, were probably outsourcing more of their production to foreign contractors in which they held no equity stake.
Indeed, it is possible that such arm’s-length outsourcing was a significant factor behind the 84% increase in imports by US
multinationals
and the 52% increase in private-sector imports that occurred between 1999 and 2009.
To understand domestic and foreign employment trends by US multinationals, it is also important to look at services.
From 1999 to 2009, employment in US multinationals’ foreign subsidiaries increased by 2.8 million, or 36.2%.
During the 2000’s, rapid growth in emerging markets boosted business and consumer demand for many services in which US
multinationals
are strongly competitive.
Since many of these services require face-to-face interaction with customers, US
multinationals
had to expand their foreign employment to satisfy demand in these markets.
Previous research has found that increases in employment in US multinationals’ foreign subsidiaries are positively correlated with increases in employment in their US operations: in other words, employment abroad complements employment at home, rather than substituting for it.
Facts, not perceptions, should guide policymaking where
multinationals
are concerned.
And the facts indicate that, despite decades of globalization, US
multinationals
continue to make significant contributions to US competitiveness – and to locate most of their economic activity at home, not abroad.
Spain counts a fair number of successful, cutting-edge multinationals, from Ferrovial and FCC in public works to Iberdrola and Abengoa in the energy sector.
It is not their prerogative to decide what the next smart-city solution should be – or, worse, to use their citizens’ money to bolster the position of the technology
multinationals
that are now marketing themselves in this field.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, allowed for near-instant depreciation of equipment investment, and offered a “tax holiday” for US
multinationals
to repatriate profits that they had long held overseas.
Back
Next
Related words
Their
Which
Foreign
Global
Profits
Countries
Would
Markets
Firms
Companies
Investment
Market
Other
Trade
Subsidiaries
Country
Where
Taxes
Business
There