Globalisation

There’s a saying “never burn your bridges” and a commonly understood definition:

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/burn+your+bridges.html

“If you burn your bridges, you do something that makes it impossible to go back from the position you have taken”

The idiom is in the right ball park for the story below, but it doesn’t quite fit the bill:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2008/02/nokias_germany.html

The article above documents the closure of a factory by a company in one of the countries in which they operate. The company was attracted in part by financial concessions awarded by the specific region within the country in question.

Things were fine for ten years, but now the company wants to relocate their factory to a different country. In today’s global economy this is common for all sorts of reasons. For all organisations, especially those led largely by profit, ultimately the move must make sense financially.

Now this is obviously a blow for the area losing the factory, jobs will go, and the people affected will enter a period of uncertainty. What should be their reaction and the reaction of the region's government?

They could take the decision in their stride, concede they had had a ‘good run’, and focus efforts on tempting new businesses into the area. After all, when the factory was originally built it was at the expense of building it in some other country, and at the expense of employing people elsewhere.

Sadly this is not the case, as the article explains. The country / area concerned have taken it very badly and they not only resent the decision, they are seeking some form of retribution by demanding the company refund the financial concessions it was granted. Unions are also up in arms.

As the article points out, the company’s mind is made up. And if this is how a hand that fed them is rewarded, it sends out a very clear signal to other businesses out looking for new factory locations. Who would want to enter a building freely but be prevented from exiting it in the same manner.

There’s no guarantee that dealing with this news in a positive and pragmatic fashion will yield a result (i.e. new business arrives to replace the old business), but every prospect that taking the opposite tack will count as a negative in the eyes of prospective investors. There may be little to choose between alternative locations when siting a factory and the slightest drawback, such as the prospect of a drawn-out and acrimonious exit, could sway a decision.

Perhaps a new idiom is required:

“When building bridges, be prepared for two way traffic”

There's no mention of what kind of undertakings the company gave when they originally agreed to site their factory, but ten years seems a reasonable stint, and there is an assumption that the company originally took the decision in good faith and had circumstances not changed they would not be contemplating this move. Nor is there any indication how profitable the factory was or will be after it is relocated. Even if the factory is profitable in it's current location, and it is simply being moved to generate yet higher profits, the outcome is still at best unfortunate. There is certainly little scope for regarding it as unacceptable. It's just a company doing what companies do the world over.

treboona@googlemail.com
http://www.treboona.co.uk/