- In terms of 'winners' and 'losers', it is possible to distinguish four groups:

1) the 'big winners' are the rich from the poor (emerging) countries.

2) The 'winners' are the rich from the rich countries and the middle class from the poor countries;

3) the 'some win, some lose' are the middle class from the rich countries and the poor from the poor countries. Here, the distinction between winners and losers depends on the sector (modern or traditional) in which the individuals work.

4) The 'big losers' are the poor from the rich countries.

- In terms of social conditions, those have improved in emerging countries and they tend to deteriorate in advanced countries, due to tax and social competition which encourages governments to lessen redistribution and boost labour market flexibility. Several European governments have tried to compensate the growing social risks due to globalization by increasing social expenditure (the so-called 'compensation effect'), but as the taxes have not increased at the same rate, this typically result in non-sustainable budget deficits. As a matter of fact, governments are facing a cruel dilemma: either they accept the poor to become poorer, or they compensate by taxing ... the middle class because the upper class in internationally mobile (mobile tax bases).

Well, Henry Kissinger said that "Under globalism, there will be winners & losers." ...so that's a given. There's a Youtube video, President of the world Bank, talking about their predicted rise of a new middle class in the East, but less about the similar loss of earning capacity for western countries. He more or less infers (apologizing?) that the World Bank is behind this global shift of wealth distribution. The paradigm seems to be one of endless competition between national economies, a nation is never presumed to be able to meet it's own needs and trade its surplus. Furthermore the globalists in persuit of lowest cost to produce goods, choose nations with the worst humans right violations (slavery) to maximize their investment dollars by paying the least for labor. Another garment factory collapsed in India recently, following the one that reached int'l media attention, where over 700 people died. The Indian minister of Finance said these collapses were "normal" and "happened everywhere." The notion is don't fight your masters, just accept your fate. Needless to say it undermines a sense of humanity or Justice to allow investment capital to flow to these countries. It's very difficult for workers of a developed nation to compete against slaves producing products in another. Investors who are profiting from these arrangements cagily omit to inform share-holders or the media, the human cost,  unless the tragedy becomes to big to ignore. And yes, the loss of jobs in developed countries does shrink the pie of benefits governments are able to pay to their citizens, even more so when the banking class lobby for laws to be relaxed, allowing them to further plunder the system.

Just some critical annotations:

From my point of view the question seems rather misleading, therefore globalization is a very complex phenomenon and serious research will always lead to an answer including "as well as".

To regard 'glocalization' as an antipode to 'globalization' seems also misleading, therefore this view excludes numerous important relationships between both concepts.

Last not least it seems misleading to ascribe very diverse phenomena as e.g. "unfavourable geographical position" or "disability" abruptly to 'glocalization'.

Altogether this way of convergence to those severe problems that have probably led to the question will more likely hide relevant relationships between factors instead of uncovering them.

it can lead to disempowerment of the marginalized disenfranchised parts of  the society if implemented with nefarious intents .