A közép-kelet-európai bankfúziók eredményessége (The success of the bank mergers in Central Eastern Europe)

Az elmúlt években a nagy európai bankcsoportok egyre több közép-kelet-európai bankot vásároltak fel. Tanulmányunkban a bankfúziók értékteremtő hatását részvényesi szemmel elemezzük. A közép-kelet-európai régióban tevékenykedő hét legnagyobb bankcsoport 2000 és 2008 közötti akvizíciós tranzakcióit az eseményelemzés módszerével vizsgáljuk. Úgy tűnik, a részvényesek összességében értékelik a bankcsoportok akvizíciós törekvéseit: a fúziók kicsit több mint felében pozitív a kumulált abnormális hozam, és enyhén pozitív az összes esemény abnormális hozamának átlaga is. Számításaink során elsőként az egyes bankcsoportok felvásárlási stratégiáját értékeljük. A felvásárlás bejelentése körüli háromnapos időintervallumot alapul véve, a Raiffeisen és az OTP stratégiája tekinthető a legsikeresebbnek, míg az Erste felvásárlásai a legkevésbé eredményesnek. Ezt követően rávilágítunk arra, hogy eltérő befektetői szándékból ugyan, de mind a legmagasabb, mind a legalacsonyabb értékű ügyletek esetében a pozitív abnormális hozamú fúziók vannak túlsúlyban. Végezetül megállapítjuk, hogy az országhatáron átívelő ügyletek befektetői megítélése nem rosszabb az országhatáron belüli tranzakciókénál. /===/ The big European banking groups have been buying up more and more banks in Central Eastern Europe. The study analyses the value-enhancing effects of the mergers from the shareholder’s angle by examining by occurrence analysis methods the Central East European acquisition transactions of the seven biggest banking groups between 2000 and 2008. The shareholders as a whole seem to appreciate the acquisition activity of the banks: cumulative abnormal yield is positive in over half the mergers and average abnormal yield of all occurrences is mildly positive as well. The authors evaluate first the acquisition strategies of each banking group. Based on a three-day period round the acquisition announcement, Raiffeisen and OTP seem to have the most successful strategies and Erste the least successful. Light is then shed on investment intentions in each case, but mergers with a positive abnormal yield predominate among the highest and the lowest value transactions. Finally, the investor evaluation of cross-border transactions is no worse than for domestic ones.

A társadalmi felelősségvállalás tendenciái a gyógyszeriparban = Corporate Social Responsibility in the Pharmaceutical Industry

A gyógyszeripar egyszerre tartozik a leginkább csodált és a legtöbbet kritizált iparágak közé. Az iparág produktumai életeket menthetnek, emberek millióinak könnyítik meg az életét, és a gyógyszereknek köszönhetően számos korábbi gyilkos kór vált ismeretlenné a fejlett országokban. Mindezek mellett azonban az iparágat számos kritika is éri: túl magas árakkal dolgozik, etikátlan promóciós praktikákkal él, magára hagyja a világ szegényeit, kétes etikai hátterű klinikai kísérleteket végez, és állami intézményekkel köt háttéralkukat. A CSR koncepciójának intenzív jelenléte az iparágban többek között a fenti ellentmondásokra adott válaszként is értelmezhető (erre utalnak a későbbiekben bemutatandó kvalitatív kutatás eredményei is). Az alábbi tanulmányban arra teszek kísérletet, hogy feltárjam, a magyar gyógyszeripar szereplői hogyan látják társadalmi felelősségüket, milyen programokat valósítanak meg CSR kezdeményezéseik során. Milyen kihívások várnak a gyógyszeripari cégek vezetőire, és milyen dilemmákkal szembesülnek társadalmi felelősségvállalásuk kapcsán? Mennyiben találhatók meg a nemzetközi kutatások által feltárt nézőpontok a hazai cégek CSR interpretációiban, illetve vannak-e a magyar gyógyszeriparnak sajátosságai ebben a tekintetben? / === / The pharmaceutical industry is among the most admired and most criticized of all. The pharmaceutical products can save lives, they make the lives of millions of people lot easier, and many legendary diseases were eradicated from the world thanks to the innovations of the industry. However, the industry receives many criticisms in the same time: the big pharma is often accused of working with high prices, applying immoral marketing practices, abandoning the poor, having a no money-no cure attitude, doing ethically questionable clinical trials, etc. This contradiction can be one reason why pharmaceutical industry is among the most CSR-oriented sectors. In this paper I investigate what the CSR initiatives and activities of the pharmaceutical companies look like in Hungary. How do the managers of these firms react to the challenges of the industry? What is their perception about the contradictions described in the previous paragraph? Are there Hungarian peculiarities regarding CSR principles and actions? During research I also wanted to identify patterns of CSR activities of the Hungarian pharmaceutical firms in order to create clusters that group companies with similar characteristics.

One More Awareness Gap? The Behaviour–Impact Gap Problem

Preceding research has made hardly any attempt to measure the ecological impacts of pro-environmental behaviour in an objective way. Those impacts were rather supposed or calculated. The research described herein scrutinized the ecological impact reductions achieved through pro-environmental behaviour and raised the question how much of a reduction in carbon footprint can be achieved through voluntary action without actually affecting the socio-economic determinants of life. A survey was carried out in order to measure the difference between the ecological footprint of “green” and “brown” consumers. No significant difference was found between the ecological footprints of the two groups—suggesting that individual pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour do not always reduce the environmental impacts of consumption. This finding resulted in the formulation of a new proposition called the BIG (behaviour–impact gap) problem, which is an interesting addition to research in the field of environmental awareness gaps.

What is the Future of Strategic Management?

The history of planning and creating strategies has a past of over half a century. Throughout this lifetime period we have witnessed both the evolution of theory and practice. The MBA study books in the last-third of the 20th century have with predilection exhibited this very process as a complex of monetary centered budget planning, forecast-based planning, strategic planning and strategic management. There might be a controversy existing about the naming, characteristics and timing of these different sections but there is an accordance that the changes that we have taken place in the last decade as a whole without a doubt can be derived from these very changes in the business environment or in some outstanding cases (like 9/11) they can be acknowledged as the ability of corporate foreseeing and the ability to adapt to the vision of the future. The main purposes of the research is to provide a summarized picture about the changing process of this procedure during last decades as far as the planning and creating strategies are concerned and also their milestones and periods. Try to explore and systemize the very aspects of these changes. The happenings of the first decade of the new millennium are outstandingly interesting if we consider their real effect on the theory and practice of strategic management. Let us remember the euphoria around the year 2000, the predictions of „new technologies”, „new economy”, „new organization” and „new leadership”. We have implied before on the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center which meant a new era, a new quality of international terrorism and its consequences (Afghanistan, Iraq). But the „product” of this decade is the strategic aim that companies focus on, which is the social responsibility regarding the unavoidance of the effects of climate change on the long run. During the research the big question has risen concerning how did the science of strategic management do as far as the predictions of the global monetary and economic crisis are concerned? And also its solutions this very science has to offer in order to handle and get over the crisis. Does it conclude from the answers given to the questions that a change in paradigms are necessary, a new quality is needed or may be we have come to a new crossroad of the development process that will take over strategic management? (...)