Strategies to go international and cope with related competitive pressures

Strategies to go international and cope with related competitive pressures

Introduction

The rate at which firms are going international has increased in recent times. The world is currently viewed by many as a global village. This has been caused by among other things advancement in technology; faster modes of communication; improved modes of transport; homogeneity in customer needs; trade liberalization; increased globalization etc. (COOK, 2008). Recent innovations in technology have changed the way business is done throughout the world. A good example of this is improvements that have been made on computing technology. Recent years have witnessed introduction into the market of highly improved computer software and hardware (COOK, 2008). Modern computers are faster in terms of processing speed; have increased storage capacities; are more portable and user friendly than those used in the twentieth century. This has made it possible for companies to process huge amounts of information and data. There have been improvements in machines used in manufacturing many products in many industries all over the world. For example soft drink companies are now able to produce many times more drinks per hour than before from their production lines. Raw materials can now be sourced cheaply in large quantities from many parts of the world (BRESLIN, 2007).

Communication has changed so much that people are currently able to chat online as they transact business. These are some of the reasons that have contributed to increased globalization in recent years. Another reason that is pushing firms to go international includes increased competition in domestic markets which is eroding market share. Yet another reason is availability of excess capacity in the existing establishment (CHEN and MUJTABA, 2007). Due to technological advances in recent years many companies have the capacity to produce more products or services than what the domestic market is able to absorb or purchase.  In order to benefit from economies of scale companies with unutilized excess capacity go international to enable them utilize the excess capacity and benefit from reduced unit production costs.

According to Ernest (2007) countries have moved from the nation-state protectionist ideology which characterized the old order of conducting business in the world. In the old order nations were driven by an inward-looking instinct to protect local economies from competition from firms based in other countries (BRESLIN, 2007). To do this, nations invested in armies to protect their borders and emphasized use of local currencies in conducting business.  In the new global economy the nation-state and the protectionist ideology that underlined business in the past has been abandoned. The new business order in the world is now guided by region-states-borderless centers of economic activity that create atmospheres conducive for outside ideas and welcome people with various skills and backgrounds (ERNST, 2007).

Strategies for going international by Coca Cola Company

            The Coca-Cola Company is one of the leading multinational corporations in the world. It operates in many countries in the world and manufactures some of the leading internationally renowned soft drink brands which include Coca-Cola, Fanta, Sprite, Bitter lemon, Dasani, Minutes Maid etc. The company’s headquarters are based in the United States of America but it overseas its global business through numerous regional offices situated in strategic places in the world. CHEN and MUJTABA (2007) noted that success of a firm’s overseas business depends on the strategies that it uses to go international.

            The strategies developed by a firm to go international impact costs and revenues and must be chosen after careful analysis and reflection. The strategies used by a company are also an important issue in international configuration of its business and formation of its global strategy. Strategies that a company choses to go international determines whether it will make profits in the international business arena or lead to loss of market potential and valuable resources such money, time etc. (CHEN and MUJTABA, 2007). The mode of entry into a foreign market enables a firm to create a network of interdependent business units and expand its global reach. Many firms today generate most of their revenues from overseas businesses which proves that going international is an important strategy that a business can undertake (MEYER, 2009).

According to MEYER (2009) strategies to go international are informed by decisions touching on location, timing, marketing, human resources, logistics etc. Some of the strategies that firms use to go international include contractual cooperation, export or foreign direct investment. Some examples of contractual cooperation include franchising, manufacturing under license and management agreements. Export strategies include entering into distributorships or exporting through export houses. Firms use foreign direct investment to enter foreign markets by either establishing operations in the host countries, acquiring existing local operations or through joint venture partnerships (MEYER, 2009). According to HUANG and ZENG (2011) firms go into foreign markets through green field projects or strategic partnerships. In undertaking green field projects a firm that desires to go international puts up facilities in the foreign market. Putting up green field projects in a foreign country is highly risky as firms must be assured of adequate markets, the political environment must be right and the cost benefit analysis must be returning positive returns.

One of the reasons that compel companies including Coca-Cola Company to carefully selecting strategies to use when moving to foreign markets is what is called liability of foreignness. Foreign firms incur additional costs when operating in foreign countries. CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU (2006) noted that these additional costs arise from; discriminatory attitudes of customers, suppliers, government agencies, etc. and the company’s unfamiliarity with the foreign environment it intends to move to. In many countries government agencies, suppliers, customers etc. tend to favour domestic companies over foreign companies. Judicial systems in many countries tend to be lenient on domestic firms and are harsh towards foreign firms. Many firms are unfamiliar with the environments of the countries that they move into. They do not understand the culture, values and norms of the society very well and are likely to make costly mistakes in their advertisements, positioning, location etc. All these demand that a firm going international choose the strategy to use carefully (CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU, 2006).

CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU (2006) also observed that lack of roots in a local environment, distance and differences in environments between home country and host country is also a cause of the phenomena of liability of foreignness. In designing foreign entry strategies The Coca- Cola Company had and continues to consider these factors. Spatial distance between Coca- Cola Company headquarters in the home country and its subsidiaries creates certain disadvantages. A company exporting directly may not be able to effectively monitor how its products are positioned by the distributor or dealer in the host country’s market. Geographical proximity translates to location advantages. This factor at times compels companies to enter into franchising agreements with foreign entrepreneurs in the host countries (CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU, 2006). Spatial distance involves travelling long distances and brings with it the nuisance of travel. For example Coca- Cola Company executives travelling from USA to inspect operations in China cross the Pacific which causes jet lag and may make them unproductive (HUTZSCHENREUTER and GRÖNE, 2009).

Host country environments are very different from domestic country environments. The differences mainly arise from political, legal, social, cultural, environmental, economic or technological factors. The differences in the environments create additional costs for foreign firms. Government policies play an important role in all countries of the world. These policies differ from one country to the next. It is therefore important for firms intending to operate internationally to understand the host country’s government policies and regulations that affect business. It is important for large corporations like The Coca- Cola Company to determine the mode of entry into such environments based on these variables (CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU, 2006).

Political stability is of paramount importance in assessing the environment of a host country. Whereas most western countries are relatively stable, most developing countries experience frequent political instability and uncertainty. Transnational corporations like The Coca-Cola Company are forced to make its own independent assessment of the political future of a host country. It is much easier to forecast the political stability of a home country than for a host country. In some host environments, business agreements go through layers of bureaucratic red tape which often times takes years to finalize. This is especially so in developing host countries such as China (CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU, 2006).

Many host governments apply pressure on foreign companies to increase local content in production processes which puts pressure on multinational corporations. Some host countries demand that a certain percentage of foreign companies’ ownership be ceded to locals sometimes for free or at reduced prices. In some cases host governments demand foreign companies transfer technology of producing the products and services to local employees (CHEN, GRIFFITH and HU, 2006).  All these factors influence the choice of strategy that an international company uses to enter a foreign market and to choose which markets to enter and the ones to avoid.As can be demonstrated host countries expect to benefit in many ways from foreign companies whereas these firms look at the market potential that exists in the foreign market. Some home countries also restrict certain business dealings and even transfers of technology to certain countries. For example US government restricts transfer of advanced computer technology and military equipment because they attach it to national security. Firms dealing in such technologies are prevented from venturing into certain markets.

There are also differences in culture, value and norms in host countries. Culture, values and norms differ in different countries. For example while in the US the emphasis is on adhering to agreements, in China relationships are based on different values CASSON and WADESON (2012). A Chinese company will shy from entering into an agreement with a US company for fear of being sued. The promise not to sue is an underlying value that determines business relationships in China. Economic factors also differ substantially between host country and home country. In certain host countries the policies on exchange rates, fiscal and monetary policies differ from those in home countries CASSON and WADESON (2012). These factors must be considered when choosing the strategies to be used when going international. Host countries are normally wary of environmental pollution by foreign companies than they are with local firms. The level of technological advancement differs between different countries and more so between developed and developing countries. Firms operating in such environments must be wary of effects of technology on their businesses. Companies whose home countries are in Western Europe, North America or other first world countries use advanced technology in carrying out their businesses which might not be available in host countries which could be developing countries CASSON and WADESON (2012).

According to CASSON and WADESON (2012) firms decide to move to international markets to benefit from ownership advantages.   This occurs in those firms that possess superior assets and skills which they use to produce differentiated products that can earn enormous returns in foreign markets where host country firms do not possess such skills and assets.  The returns are normally so high that they meet the cost of servicing those markets. Such firms fear to share such knowledge, skills and assets because host country firms that they enter into partnership with may learn how they produce the differentiated products and start competing entities at a future date.  Such firms may choose to enter into host countries through fully owned subsidiaries and manufacture the products themselves. They might also decide to export finished products to host countries. For such firms higher modes of control are necessary. This forces such firms to choose foreign entry strategies that enhance control to protect the skills and assets (BALASUBRAMANYAM and FORSANS, 2010).

The Coca- Cola Company is one such company that possesses skills that it definitely does not want firms in host countries to know. The Coca- Cola Company possesses the formula that it uses to manufactures the syrups used to manufacture the various soda flavours. To protect this critical asset The Coca-Cola Company manufactures the syrups at its factories situated in USA which is its home country and then ships it to bottling plants all over the world to use in manufacturing the various brands that are associated with it (BALASUBRAMANYAM and FORSANS, 2010).

            Firms also move to international markets to benefit from location advantages prevalent in a host country. The attractiveness of a foreign market is based on findings about its perceived   investment risk and market potential. Markets that offer very low investment risk and have very high market potential determine the entry strategy that a foreign company decides to choose (THOMAS, EDEN, HITT and MILLER, 2007).  A company might decide to open manufacturing facilities in host countries which offer high potential markets and have low investment risk. Generally, host countries that offer high market potential favor entry strategies that involve direct investment to benefit from economies of scale.  The investment risk in a host country is a function of the prevailing economic conditions, political climate and government regulations. These factors determine the financial viability of firms’ business operations (THOMAS, EDEN, HITT and MILLER, 2007).

            Firms move to foreign markets to benefit from internalization advantages. Internalization advantages are determined after assessing risks of integrating assets and skills within the firm versus sharing the assets and skills with a host country firm.  This is normally done by assessing the risks that come with sharing the assets and skills with a firm in the host country; these risks are referred to as contractual risks. Contractual risks include risks in making and enforcing contracts in the foreign country, risks of deterioration in the quality of goods or services if produced jointly with a host firm and risk of dissipation of proprietary knowledge (THOMAS, EDEN, HITT and MILLER, 2007).

Modes of foreign market entry

The modes of entry into foreign markets are determined by various strategies that firms adopt. For example a firm may adopt a market seeking –strategy when deciding to move into a host country. Market seeking strategies are adopted by firms when they intend to expand their operations by entering into new markets (SRIUSSADAPORN, 2006). Market seeking strategies are motivated by the host country’s markets size and potential to grow. Other firms adopt resource- seeking strategies when going international. This strategy is normally adopted when a firm is seeking to enter into a host market to exploit available resources. Resource- seeking strategies are normally driven by prices and demand that firms built facilities in resource rich countries to exploit the low cost resources of raw materials and labour. Firms also move into foreign markets motivated by control –oriented strategies. Control-oriented strategies are normally adopted when a firm intends to maintain decision authority over the affairs of the host country Firms. Control-oriented strategies include joint venture or wholly owned subsidiaries (LIANG, MUSTEEN and DATTA, 2009).

Firms intending to move into foreign markets by way of foreign direct investment are forced to select among a variety of possible entry modes. A firm might use methods such as building a totally new facility in the host country, exporting, buying an existing facility and upgrade it, entering into a joint venture or licensing arrangement with a host country company, or acquiring a competitor with operations in the foreign market (LIANG, MUSTEEN and DATTA, 2009). The decision that a firm settles for must be able to help it achieve its foreign market entry strategy. Building a totally new facility in a host country is highly risky. The new facility will be subjected to liability of foreignness. Firstly domestic customers, suppliers, government agencies etc. will tend to favour domestic firms over foreign firms. The firm going international must determine the level of liability to foreignness because if it is too high then the firm might decide not to build premises in the host country but instead use another strategy (ACHEAMPONG,  2011)..

Firms intending to go international might decide to buy an existing factory and upgrade it to international standards. This strategy is appropriate in markets that have high market potential and very low investment risk. In markets that have very high investment risk it may be counterproductive to buy an existing facility of built new premises. Investment risk is underlined by the prevailing economic conditions, political climate and government regulations (ACHEAMPONG, 2011). Countries facing political uncertainty and instability pose a huge investment risk. This due to the fact that foreign company’s premises can be vandalized or be targeted in unstable situations like during demonstrations.

Government regulations also determine investment risk in a host country because they determine whether a foreign company’s business operations will be profitable or not.  Government regulations and policies on profit repatriation, tax policies, work permits, ownership structures and expropriation policies are of particular importance. In host countries where government regulations restrict repatriation of profits investment risk is very higher than ones which do not restrict (KELM, 2009). Tax policies are an important determinant of investment risk. In some host countries tax policies are not clear and are subject to different interpretations. Such countries have a higher investment risk. Some countries demand that any new venture undertaken by a foreign entity must cede a certain percentage of ownership to locals at times for free. This type of entry poses high investment risk because most of those who end up benefiting are normally politically correct individuals (KELM, 2009). Once these individuals cease to be politically correct either due to a regime change or unexpected turn of events then the venture also suffers accordingly.

Some host countries pose the risk of nationalization of privately owned enterprises. This also raises investment risk.

In some instances firms enter into joint venture partnerships in order to leverage each other’s skills and assets to attain competitive advantage. This happens in cases where a firm does not necessarily need to protect its skills or assets. A firm may want to enter into a market for a short duration and pull out after recouping its initial investment and capital gains. In this case a foreign firm may enter into a joint venture with a host country firm to incorporate a new entity (ACHEAMPONG, 2011). Such Joint venture partnerships are also popular in cases where the foreign company does not understand the culture very well, does not understand the market well, wants to spread investment risk or intend to leverage the skills of a successful domestic firm to capture a huge share of the market. The Coca- Cola Company has relied on this entry mode to venture into some markets (BLOMSTERMO, DEO SHARMA and SALLIS, 2006).

Licensing is a foreign market entry strategy that enables a parent company to earn licensing fees at the end of each year.  In cases where a firm is not restricted by government regulations in transferring skills, the firm may decide to enter into a license or franchise agreement with host country firms (ACHEAMPONG, 2011). The Coca- Cola Company uses franchising also as a strategy to enter into foreign markets. In the case of Coca-Cola Company, the syrup used to manufacture the soft drinks such as Fanta; Sprite etc. are manufactured in the US and shipped to bottling firms around the globe. Most of the bottling firms in the host countries are incorporated under a franchise agreement with The Coca-Cola Company. The Coca- Cola Company develops marketing programs that it passes over to these bottling plants to implement. Under this arrangement the host country bottling firms also benefit from Coca-Cola management expertise through trainings and consultation (BLOMSTERMO, DEO SHARMA and SALLIS, 2006).

.

Another entry strategy is through export directly to a host country. In cases where a domestic company is uncertain about the size of the host markets it may appoint a sole distributor who is charged with the responsibility of marketing the firm’s products in the host country (HUANG and ZENG, 2011). This kind of an arrangement ensures that the company is able to move the products more easily in the market because the firm selected understands the host market better. The main disadvantage is that the distributor may also sell the competitors’ products as well. It is hard also to monitor such distributors to ensure they position the product in a manner that is agreeable to the parent company (HUANG and ZENG, 2011).

Organization and Communication

            The organization of global business depends on the product, the foreign market entry mode, size of the firm, resource capability etc. (SRIUSSADAPORN, 2006). Organizations which sell very fast moving consumer goods such as the type marketed by Coca-Cola require a highly mechanized structure. This type of structure is highly formal and follows the chain of command. This is because what is needed to maximize profits is more or less efficiency in productions, distribution and promotion (KAMEDA, 2005). The more of the product is produced the higher the amount of revenue the company is likely to generate. Highly mechanized structures are ideal for this type of business. Such global companies operate regional offices that oversee the operations in areas that they are put in charge of. Products or services whose production requires high levels of mental activity require organic structures that are flat and decentralized. This type of structure encourages sharing of ideas and experiences. Medical research firms use this type of structure (MUSTEEN, DATTA and HERRMANN, 2009).

In the case of Coca-Cola Company, the firm operates bottling firms in various countries of the world mainly through franchise agreements. In this case the bottling plants are managed by the franchisee management team. The Coca-Cola Company however provides guidance on how to manage them efficiently. The structure that Coca-Cola uses in its bottling plants is in line with the machine type of structure. This is because the type of work in these plants is routine (YANG, 2010). The structure is highly formal and in line with a chain of command. This structure ensures that products are produced efficiently with minimal defaults.  A mechanistic structure is very ideal for assembly lines and bottling lines because the tasks performed are repetitive and do not require a lot of mental activity ( NIGAM and SU, 2011). This structure is highly formal and instructions are made at the apex of the institution and cascaded below.

Communication is very important in modern global business. Due to recent advances in communication technology, global firms are able to communicate faster across borders. Modern communication modes include mobile phones; Skype, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Maven, Muick book, various email platforms such as Gmail, Yahoo mail, Hotmail, computer teleconferencing etc. (MAYRHOFER, 2007). Mobile phones have literary revolutionized communication in recent times. Executives can monitor operations of subsidiary companies located in the other half of the globe in the comforts of their bedrooms. They can use mobile forms to get all manner of information from any place in the world. Scanning global environment to design strategies that create competitive advantages for firms operating across the globe is made possible by mobile phone technology. Mobile phones have become so advanced that they can be used to access Gmail, Yahoo mail and can facilitate online chats (MAYRHOFER, 2007). Executives are able to even watch current affairs using their mobile phones. If there is one gadget that has revolutionized communication it can arguably be said to be the modern mobile smart phones.

Skype, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. are some websites that are internet enabled and which make it possible for executives to communicate easily. Executives in America can chat with customers in China easily using Skype. Verbal orders can be placed through Skype. Executives do not have to travel to different markets to sell their products. They can upload the pictures of their products on Facebook for prospective customers around the world to view and place orders (MAYRHOFER, 2007). Money transfer technology has also been enhanced through Mpesa and Western Union among others. These new money transfer methods make it possible for firms to pay for goods in far flung areas within a short period of time.

There are marked differences between international business environments and domestic business environments. International business environments involve use of multiple currencies as the medium of exchange whereas domestic business environments are characterized by only one single currency as the unit of transaction. Use of multiple currencies to transact business poses foreign exchange rate risk. Foreign exchange rate risk is the risk posed to a firm’s assets value and cash flows due to unexpected fluctuations in exchange rate of the host country currency to the dollar. Such a risk is absent in domestic business environment (BRESLIN, 2007). Another difference between international business environment and domestic business environment is distance. International business environment in many cases involve operating in areas with a very large spatial distance. For example a firm in the US may have operations in China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Executives may have to travel to such places to monitor the business. Such travel comes with it the challenges of long distance travel etc. Domestic business environment on the other hand involves operating with the confines of a country’s international boundaries (YANG, 2010). In most small countries in terms of square kilometers this travel can be done in a day and an executive does not need to travel by air.

International business environment involve dealing with different national government authorities and policies. For example a business domiciled in Britain and which has operations in China will have to understand the government regulations in Britain and in China as well. These influence investment risk and viability of the business. This is unlike domestic business environments which only involve dealing with one government (GEARY, 2006). Internal business environments involve dealing with different cultures, values and norms. For example people in USA like suing their business partners for any breach in contractual agreements but in China it is said relationships are strengthened by the promise not to sue. In Japan there is an ingrained culture of politeness which cannot be said of other jurisdictions. Domestic business environments do not deal with different cultures. Their culture is only one and the executives in a domestic business environment only need to master one culture only (HUTZSCHENREUTER and GRÖNE, 2009).

International business environments demand that firms either export their expertise and skills or finished products. In the case of export strategy the global company will need to export finished products to another country (GABBARD, 2006). In domestic market environment firms do not need to export their products. International business environments are also characterized by increased revenues. Firms that operate in international markets generally are able to generate more revenues than firms operating in domestic markets. This is simply because the market is larger global firms than for local firms (HUTZSCHENREUTER and GRÖNE, 2009). A recession in a domestic company may not necessarily lead to losses in an international firm unless it generates most of its revenues from the domestic market. In the case of local firms, a recession in a domestic market directly impacts on the fortunes of a local firm. A global firm risks are more diversified than for a local firm.

Competition is one of the reasons that compel firms to go international. Fierce competition in domestic market, little product differentiation and falling market share are some of the reasons that compel firms to move to international markets. In order to counter competition in foreign countries, firms use high levels of control especially when they have unique products that local firms cannot produce (GEARY, 2006). In such cases firms produce in their home countries and only export finished products to the host countries. This is done so as to protect trade secrets that are essential for achieving competitive advantage (GABBARD, 2006). In the case of The Coca Cola Company, the syrups used to manufacture the various soda brands are manufactured in the US and only shipped to bottling firms all over the world. The formula is a closely guarded trade secret since if it leaks out competitors will manufacture similar products and erode the company’s competitive position. Firms also develop standardized marketing programs that are used to market their products in global markets. The choice of entry strategy also influences competitive position. By entering into a joint venture with a successful local firm, a foreign company is able to leverage the skills of the local firm to stay ahead of the competition (HUTZSCHENREUTER and GRÖNE, 2009).

References

ACHEAMPONG, N.K., (2011). The effects of foreign bank entry on financial performance of

            Ghanaian-owned banks, University of Phoenix.

BALASUBRAMANYAM, V.N. and FORSANS, N., (2010). Internationalisation drivers of

Indian firms. Asian Business & Management, 9(3), pp. 319-340.

BLOMSTERMO, A., DEO SHARMA, D. and SALLIS, J.,(2006). Choice of foreign market

entry mode in service firms. International Marketing Review, 23(2), pp. 211-229.

BRESLIN, S., (2007). The Political Economy of Development in China: Political agendas

and economic realities. Development,50(3), pp. 3-10.

CASSON, M. and WADESON, N., (2012). The economic theory of international business: a

supply chain perspective. Multinational Business Review, 20(2), pp. 114-134.

CHEN, L.Y. and MUJTABA, B., (2007). The Choice of Entry Mode Strategies and

Decisions for International Market Expansion. Journal of American Academy of

            Business, Cambridge, 10(2), pp. 322-337.

CHEN, H., GRIFFITH, D.A. and HU, M.Y., (2006). The influence of liability of foreignness

on market entry strategies. International Marketing Review, 23(6), pp. 636-649.

COOK, G., (2008). Global Remix – The Fight for Competitive Advantage. Training

            Journal, , pp. 63.

ERNST, C., (2007). The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless

World. Personnel Psychology,60(1), pp. 238-242.

GABBARD, E., (2006). Challenges of the International Contracting Environment. Contract

            Management, 46(3), pp. 8-10,12-14.

GEARY, W.J., (2006). Global Competition Isn’t Lethal. Manufacturing Engineering, 137(1),

1. 20-21.

HUANG, X. and ZENG, Y., (2011). The Impacts of Foreign Bank Entry on Credit Scale and

Business Structure of Chinese Commercial Banks*. Modern Economy, 2(5), pp. 814-

HUTZSCHENREUTER, T. and GRÖNE, F., (2009). Product and geographic scope changes

of multinational enterprises in response to international competition. Journal of

            International Business Studies, 40(7), pp. 1149-1170.

KAMEDA, N., (2005). A research paradigm for international business communication.

Corporate Communications, 10(2), pp. 168-182.

KELM, O.R., (2009). Online blogs: teaching the cultural aspects of international business.

Journal of International Education in Business, 2(1), pp. 33-47.

LIANG, X., MUSTEEN, M. and DATTA, D.K., (2009). Strategic Orientation and the Choice

of Foreign Market Entry Mode An Empirical Examination. Management

            International Review, 49(3), pp. 269-290.

MAYRHOFER, U., (2007). The Next Global Stage. Challenges and Opportunities in our

Borderless World. Management International, 11(2), pp. 81-85,87,89

MEYER, K., (2009). Foreign market entry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

MUSTEEN, M., DATTA, D.K. and HERRMANN, P., (2009). Ownership structure and CEO

compensation: Implications for the choice of foreign market entry modes. Journal of

            International Business Studies, 40(2), pp. 321-338.

NIGAM, R. and SU, Z., (2011). Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A

Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective. Journal of Centrum Cathedra, 4(1),

3. 121-133.

SRIUSSADAPORN, R., (2006). Managing international business communication problems

at work: a pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand. Cross Cultural Management,

            13(4), pp. 330-344.

THOMAS, D.E., EDEN, L., HITT, M.A. and MILLER, S.R., (2007). Experience of

Emerging Market Firms: The Role of Cognitive Bias in Developed Market Entry and

Survival. Management International Review, 47(6), pp. 845-867.

YANG, P., (2010). China and the Global Political Economy. Asian Business &

            Management, 9(2), pp. 285-288.

 

 

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]