Airline Strategy
CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 114 Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms Huei-Ting Tsai Andreas B. Eisingerich A lthough firms from emerging markets are becoming significant global players, 1 our knowledge about the processes through which these latecomers catch up with existing multinational firms remains limited. The purpose of this article is to comple- ment and extend current knowledge by providing a typology that outlines the patterns of internationalization strategies pursued by firms from emerging markets.
Existing theories on firms’ internationalization processes mainly base on large Western multinational enterprises (MNEs) and suggest that international- ization motives and behaviors can be largely explained by the eclectic paradigm of Dunning, 2 which states that firms enter foreign markets to exploit their exist- ing competitive advantages. Moreover, much of the early literature on firms’ internationalization processes adopts an incremental view, suggesting that firms gradually deepen their commitment and investment as they gain more market experience in the process of internationalization. 3 Research also notes that the overseas expansion of firms from emerging economies can be driven by their search for resources and other critical assets, such as technological know-how, R&D capability, managerial skills, and global brands to compete successfully with their more advanced peers from developed markets in the global economy. 4 That is, firms from emerging markets may internationalize their operations to explore critical assets available in global markets instead of exploiting their existing competitive advantage. 5 In addition, many of the growing firms from emerging economies, unlike those from the developed countries, pursue rapid internationalization, in many cases, through The authors would like to thank Dr Eden Yin for his valuable suggestions during the earlier phase of this study. We also thank reviewers for their suggestions on improving the manuscripts. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 115 acquisitions. They thus leapfrog the early stage of the traditional international- ization process and directly pursue a high-commitment mode of entry to quickly catch up with the existing global players. 6 This article addresses the following three questions:
6 hWhat are the key characteristics of different internationalization patterns pursued by multinational firms from emerging markets?
6 hHow can we classify emerging market multinational firms by their inter- nationalization strategies? and 6 hWhat are the lessons learned for firms in developed economies? Firms of Emerging Markets :
New Typology of Internationalization Strategies To develop a typology of internationalization strategies for firms of emerg- ing markets, we employ a categorization scheme that is based on R&D inten- sity and marketing intensity. Our rationale for choosing R&D and marketing as dimensions through which firms can be categorized is as follows: First, a large number of firms from newly developed and emerging markets (such as South Korea, Taiwan, and India) operate in the technology sector, where research and development plays an important role. Furthermore, we include marketing inten- sity as one dimension in our analysis of emerging market firms’ international- ization strategies. 7 For instance, the founder and former CEO of Acer, Mr. Shih, argued that the most value-added components of any technology value chain, which also yield the highest profit margins, are R&D and marketing. 8 Specifically, firms that specialize in the R&D of core hard- ware or software (such as CPU, DRAM, and operation systems) and sales/market- ing (such as marketing with brand names or providing customer service) would enjoy higher profit margins than firms that operate the middle part of the value chain activities (such as manufacturing and assembling PCs). 9 Thus, marketing is an integral component of emerging market firms’ success in their efforts to enter global markets. As indicated by prior research, certain industries require greater marketing efforts by firms than others. 10 The extent of marketing intensity in certain industries will significantly affect the internationalization strategies of firms in that industry. 11 Figure 1 presents four different types of firms, distinguished by the levels of R&D intensity and marketing intensity of their internationalization activi- ties. The typology highlights the dual challenge faced by emerging market firms, namely, market creation and/or R&D knowledge creation. Huei-Ting Tsai is assistant professor of marketing at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan and works on international marketing strategy and internationalization strategies of firms from emerging markets. Andreas B. Eisingerich is assistant professor of marketing at Imperial College Business School in London and works on internationalization, brand management, and service innovation strategies.
Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 116 Prior research of internationalization theory argues that firms implement their international expansion in incremental steps by gradually deepening their commitment and investment as they gain greater market knowledge and experi- ence over time. 12 This body of research also asserts that firms invest initially in neighboring, geographically close countries, and they subsequently enter foreign markets with successively greater geographical distance. 13 Based on the incre- mental view noted above, we categorize firms engaged in gradual international- ization into two types: regional exporter/importer and global exporter/importer. The former relates to emerging market firms that gradually deepen their commit- ment and investment as they gain more market knowledge and experience and begin by exporting to, and importing from, geographically close markets. The latter refers to firms from emerging markets that initially limit their investments and engagement in foreign markets but export/import on a global rather than merely regional level. Regional Exporter/Importer Geographically focused firms (Figure 1, Group D), such as Doonsan (Korea), derive competitive advantage by serving the needs of customers in a particular region (often focusing on geographically close countries) through the use of cheap resources, such as labor. Such firms differ from other types of firms in that they restrict themselves to the markets of developing countries, because these firms lack firm specific knowledge and insufficient marketing capability to compete with global multinationals. Also, markets of developing countries are generally less expensive and less risky to enter due to lower competition than in markets that are already developed and geographically farther away. Global Exporter and Importer Firms in Group B (Figure 1) focus on import and export activities in the global market, enabling them to exploit new market opportunities, which firms focusing on regional markets would not be able to attain. Firms of this type have sufficient marketing capability but are not involved in high-value-added activities, such as developing proprietary R&D capability to obtain their own patents due to a lack of firm-specific knowledge. They differ from multinational challengers in that they are restricted to the activities of inbound and outbound logistics. Examples of this type include Hutchison-Whampou (Hong Kong) and Li-Fung Ltd. (Hong Kong). Multinational Challenger Some firms from emerging markets can be categorized as “multinational challengers” (Group A, Figure 1). They have surplus resources and are able to compete with multinational firms from developed countries and serve an array of countries and products based on their internal capabilities. Firms in this cat- egory are active in global markets and primarily engaged in high-value-added activities, such as R&D and branding, which require high levels of knowledge and marketing capability. Examples of this type include Samsung, which is able Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 117 to accelerate its internationalization and bypass the traditional, incremental pat- terns to catch up with global competitors. 14 OEM/ODM (Original Equipment/Design Manufacturing) Although previous work indicates the possibility of accelerated interna- tionalization, it focuses primarily on the internationalization of large firms. Cur- rent research has also paid attention to the rapid internationalization of small and medium-sized firms. For instance, researchers coined the term “born-global” firms to describe firms that pursue internationalization at a very early stage in their development. 15 These firms adopt a global mindset at their inception and embark on rapid internationalization. 16 This might be explained by recent trends such as advances in information and communication technologies, the increas- ing role of niche markets, and the growth of global networks. 17 Companies with unique capabilities can overcome the liability of foreignness associated with their internationalization and speed up their global expansion process at their incep- tion. We therefore categorize such firms in Group C (Figure 1) as “born-global” firms. The majority of firms in Group C are born-global firms in high-tech indus- tries, such as Infosys from India and TSMC from Taiwan. Compared to firms in Group C, firms in Group B specialize in knowledge-intensive and contractual manufacture activities because of their limited capital. Research Methodology This study is based on the Forbes list of global 500 firms. Since this study focused on firms from emerging markets, we excluded firms from the triad countries on the list. 18 We elected to focus on the top four nations on the Forbes list (i.e., South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India) because they each con- tribute the largest number of MNEs representing emerging and newly industri- alized nations. 19 These four nations have 138 MNEs in total, representing 44% of all MNEs from emerging and newly industrialized nations. The firms in our sample cover a wide range of industry sectors, such as business services and sup- plies (e.g., Wipro and Infosys), drugs and biotechnology (Ranbaxy Laboratories), consumer durables (Hyundai Motor and LG electronics), semiconductors (Sam- sung Electronics and Taiwan Semiconductors), technology hardware and equip- ment (Honghai), and trading and textiles (Hutchuson-Whampou). In terms of firm age, 10% of the firms are under 10 years, while 13.3% are between 10 and 20 years old. The firms that are between 20 and 30 years old account for 33.3% of the sample. Firms between 30 and 40 years as well as 40 and 50 years account for 20% and 10% of the total sample, respectively. In our sample, 13.3% of the firms were older than 50 years.
In this study, the concept of emerging economies is defined in the broader sense. It includes both emerging economies in the traditional sense (such as the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and newly industrialized nations (such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore). Although we acknowl- edge a significant difference between these two groups of economies, the deci- Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 118 sion to do so is based on two reasons. First, this study addresses the issue of internationalization strategies for firms from non-Triad economies, which inher- ently includes both emerging and newly industrialized economies. Second, com- pared to firms from the Triad economies in the global business arena, firms from newly industrialized nations, such as Taiwan and South Korea, are still emerging despite of a few noticeable global players such as Acer and Samsung. In the light of these two reasons, we decided to examine both groups of economies in this study. Data coding was conducted by two coders independent to the study. Inter- coder agreement was high (91%) and conflict was resolved through discussion.
Statistical Analyses In this study, we adopt a cluster analysis to identify the groups of firms that share common characteristics along critical dimensions. Cluster analy- sis groups firms with similar characteristics together across a set of variables, thus leading to homogeneous empirical types, 20 and has been frequently used to divide a sample into several groups that demonstrate high degree of association. 21 Because we did not intend to artificially limit the number of different groups of firms a priori, we adopted a hierarchical cluster analysis that was deemed the most appropriate method to explore and classify the data. In this analysis, we also adopted the recommended Ward’s method, which minimizes the variance within groups and thus maximizes their homogeneity. 22 Using this method, we were able to identify the most appropriate number of different groups for an effective categorization and analysis of firms’ internationalization strategies. On the basis of our prior discussion, we chose R&D and marketing intensity as the two dimensions of our typology through which emerging market firms are categorized in our cluster analysis. We then measured R&D intensity by a firm’s R&D expenses expressed as the percentage of the firm’s total rev- enue. Marketing intensity is measured by the percentage of a firm’s marketing expenditure including selling and advertising over its total revenue.
Fifteen variables describing the various elements of a firm’s internation- alization strategies were identified (see Table 1 for details). We employed prin- ciple components analysis with Varimax rotation to determine the common underlying factors that can summarize a firm’s internationalization strategies.
All fifteen variables entered into the factor analysis loaded onto one of the four factors with loadings all exceeding the recommended threshold level of 0.5. 23 In addition, scree tests and eigenvalues were used as the selection criteria for deciding how many factors are to be retained for later analysis. 24 Both scree plot and eigenvalues indicate that a four-factor solution provides a strong fit to the current data. Specifically, the factor analysis yields 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and a total variance explained of 75.52%. Moreover, the factors extracted from the measures of internationalization strategies satisfy the require- ment of a 0.5 Cronbach’s G value proposed by Nunnally. 25 Keiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of sampling adequacy is also acceptable (KMO = 0.655 > 0.5), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BST) is significant (p = 0.000 < 0.001) for the Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 119 four sets of variables. Therefore, four factors are identified as the valid under- lying dimensions summarizing the internationalization efforts by firms in our sample (see Table 2 for details). Based on the nature of these groupings, we label the four factors as follows: Factor 1 as “scope of international expansion,” Factor 2 as “market entry strategies,” Factor 3 as “product strategies” and Factor 4 as “internalization commitment.” These four factors have adequate face validity.
Discussion and Typology Development Current results show that six clusters of firms emerge from the sample, using R&D intensity and marketing intensity as the classification variables. As noted earlier, there are statistically significant differences between the six clus- ters in terms of their internationalization strategies. We next present the mean Variables Measure Internationalization Motive1 - Resource Seeking 2 - Market Seeking 3 - Efficiency Seeking 4 - Strategic Asset Seeking Degree of Expansion Number of Countries Entered Depth of Expansion Total Number of Foreign Offices Intensity of ExpansionNumbers of Countries Entered Simultaneously Speed of Entr y Time Difference between a Firm’s Inception and Its First Internationalization Activity, e.g., number of years Diversity of Entr y ModeNumber of Entr y Modes the Firm Adopts Primar y Entr y Mode 1 - Low Risk Mode, e.g., expor t 2 - Medium Risk Mode, e.g., JV/ OEM 3 - High Risk Mode, e.g., M&A 4 - Ver y High Risk Mode, e.g., wholly own subsidiaries Target Market for Entr y1 - Underdeveloped Countries(e.g., Africa) 2 - Developing Countries (e.g., BRICs) 3 - Newly Industrialized Countries 4 - Developed Countries Market Segment Selection1 - Regional Mass Market 2 - Overseas Niche Market- Low End 3 - Overseas Niche Market- High End 4 - Global Market TABLE 1. Internationalization Strategies: Variables and Measures (continued on next page) Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 120 scores of the four underlying common factors for each cluster and label the six clusters. We then analyze and contrast their internationalization strategies (see Table 3 for details).
Cluster 1: Regional Exporters Firms in this category are characterized by low levels of R&D intensity (e.g., low R&D expenses compared to other firms) and also have limited geo- graphical coverage and expansion commitments. However, for firms in this category we find strong product strategies, such as specific product ranges and designs for neighboring countries and stronger investments in sales and distribu- tion. We therefore categorize firms in this group as regional exporters. Firms in this category account for 20% (n= 6) of our total sample. Representative firms in this cluster include Hanwha and Hyosung Corp., both from South Korea. Variables Measure Internationalization ExperienceTime Period during which the Firm has been Internationalizing, e.g., number of years Product Quality 1 - Low 2 - Modest 3 - High Quality 4 - Outstanding Quality Price 1 - Low 2 - Medium 3 - High 4 - Premium Product Development1 - Expor t Existing Domestic Products 2 - Adaptation of Existing Domestic Products 3- Adaptation and New Product Development for Overseas Markets 4 - New Product Development for Overseas Markets Product Range 1 - Ver y Narrow Range of Products 2 - Medium Range of Products 3 -Wide Product Range, e.g., many products within the same product categories 4- Extremely Wide Product Range, e.g., products covering many sectors Branding Strategies 1 - Expor t without Own Brand 2 - OEM without Own Brand 3 - Local Own Brand 4 - Global Own Brand TABLE 1. Internationalization Strategies: Variables and Measures (continued from previous page) Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 121 Cluster 2: Global Market Niche Players Firms in Cluster 2 are characterized by high R&D expenditures and they undertake fast market entry strategies. At the same time, firms in this category also have wide geographical coverage and modest sales expenditures. Moreover, they are characterized by a modest product strategy. More specifically, firms in this cluster adopt niche market strategies and thus pursue a narrow product range. Accordingly, we categorize these firms as global market niche players.
Firms in this category account for 10% of the total sample. Representative firms in this group include Honhai and Asus, both from Taiwan. Cluster 3: Global Exporters and Importers Firms in this cluster invest heavily in sales and distribution but spend little on R&D. Compared with those in other clusters, firms in Cluster 3 have the wid- est scope of international expansion. Moreover, they are characterized by a focus on product quality rather than mass production and a competition on price. In addition, firms in this group generally expand to overseas markets gradually.
Firms in this cluster primarily focus on global distributions and supply-chain managements. We therefore categorize this group of firms as global exporters and importers. Firms in this cluster account for 13% of the total sample. Rep- resentative firms in this cluster include Hutchison-Whampou and Li-Fung Ltd., both from Hong Kong. Cluster 4: OEM/ODM Technology Leader Firms in Cluster 4 generally rely on innovation to succeed and hence commit significant resources to R&D efforts. They also tend to adopt fast market entry strategies. In addition, firms in this cluster do not invest heavily in sales Eigen- valuePercen- tage of the Vari- anceCumu- lative Percen- tage Mean SDCron- bach’s G Factor 1:Scope of International Expansion 3.242 23.161 23.161 3.000 .4485 0.827 Factor 2:
Market Entr y Strategies 3.002 21.446 44.606 2.625 .9401 0.804 Factor 3:
Product Strategies 2.603 18.594 63.200 2.289 .1045 0.796 Factor 4:
Internationalization Commitment 1.725 12.320 75.520 2.633 .0828 0.786 TABLE 2. Factor Analysis of Internationalization Strategies Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 122 and marketing activities. They tend to play a major role in technological innova- tion but do not focus on strategies issues such as geographical coverage, sales, products, and marketing strategies. We thus categorize firms in this cluster as OEM/ technology leaders. Firms in Cluster 4 represent 30% (n= 9) of the total sample. Representative firms in this cluster include TSMC and Quanta from Tai- wan and Hynix from South Korea.
Cluster 5: Multinational Challengers Firms in Cluster 5 pursue the most advanced and sophisticated product and marketing strategies. They are also the most aggressive in terms of mar- ket selection and targeting decisions. Firms in this category invest substantial amounts of resources in R&D and marketing activities. Firms in this group are therefore categorized as global market challengers that are competing with other existing global multinational firms. Firms in Cluster 5 represent 7% of the total sample and representative firms in this cluster include Samsung and LG from South Korea. Cluster 6: OEM/ODM Technology Fast-followers Compared to firms in Cluster 4, firms in Cluster 6 have a relatively low commitment to internationalization in terms of resources invested. For exam- ple, firms in Cluster 6 do not spend as much on R&D as technology leaders in Cluster 4. Yet, firms in this group still spend more on R&D than sales activities. Factor 1:
Expansion ScopeFactor 2:
Market Entr y StrategiesFactor 3:
Product StrategiesFactor 4:
Expansion CommitmentMarketing IntensityR&D Intensity Clus- ter 1 2.54 (Rank: 5)1.72 (Rank: 6)2.50 (Rank: 4) 2.07 (Rank: 6)244.51 (Rank: 4)38.79 (Rank: 5) Clus- ter 2 3.17 (Rank: 3)3.00 (Rank: 2)2.33 (Rank: 6)3.60 (Rank: 1)505.7 (Rank: 3)182.92 (Rank: 2) Clus- ter 3 3.88 (Rank:1)2.25 (Rank: 4)3.25 (Rank: 1)3.60 (Rank: 1)508.61 (Rank: 2)27.85 (Rank: 6) Clus- ter 4 1.69 (Rank: 6)2.33 (Rank: 3)2.39 (Rank: 5)3.60 (Rank: 1)168.63 (Rank: 6)171.89 (Rank: 3) Clus- ter 5 3.88 (Rank: 1)3.50 (Rank: 1)3.25 (Rank: 1)3.60 (Rank: 1)1036.45 (Rank: 1)343.06 (Rank: 1) Clus- ter 6 2.58 (Rank: 4)2.06 (Rank: 5)2.67 (Rank: 3)3.57 (Rank: 5)174.18 (Rank: 5)104.30 (Rank: 4) TABLE 3. Mean Values of the Six Clusters on the Strategic Elements of Their Internationalization Strategies Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 123 Therefore, it is clear that firms in this group focus on technology-related activi- ties. Compared to Cluster 4, firms in Cluster 6 also have more sophisticated product strategies. This may be due to the fact that they focus more on applying mature technologies to produce standardized products for global markets. Firms in this cluster are thus categorized as technology followers. Firms in Cluster 6 account for 20% of the total sample. Representative firms in this cluster include Lite-on and Hyundai Mobis (Figure 2).
Contrasting Internationalization Strategies of Different Clusters There are significant differences among firms in the six identified clus- ters along critical dimensions of firms’ internationalization strategies. We next compare and contrast these differences across a number of key elements of the internationalization strategy: intensity of expansion, speed of entry, target mar- ket selection, entry mode, product strategies, and market segment selection for firms in these clusters. We chose these strategic elements because they represent important internationalization decisions a firm has to make and directly affect a firm’s overseas performance. 26 Intensity of Expansion Intensity of expansion refers to the number of different countries that a firm enters simultaneously in its global expansion. It is an important decision for firms to make because a greater number of countries entered at the same time is associated with greater complexity in terms of local market knowledge and resource management, which requires a stronger capability and in-depth knowl- edge of the internationalizing firm. 27 The multiple market expansion strategy thus requires greater firm-specific advantages, which can help firms to cope with the potential liability of foreignness and other adverse situations such as capital investments and competition. In our sample, most firms that were characterized FIGURE 2. Clusters of Internationalization of Firms Based on R&D and Marketing Intensity Marketing Intensity R&D Intensity 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 124 by a higher R&D intensity and/or higher marketing intensity (such as firms in Cluster 2, 3, 4, and 5) appear to enter several markets at a time because of their strong technological and selling capabilities. In contrast, firms with less R&D and marketing intensity (such as firms in Cluster 1 and 6) tend to enter one market at a time.
Speed of Entry Differences are also observable in terms of speed of entry among four groups of firms. Firms with strong R&D intensity often expand to overseas mar- kets shortly after the firm is established, such as firms in Cluster 4 and Cluster 6. In contrast, firms with weaker R&D intensity generally adopt a more incre- mental approach to international expansion, which is defined as the waterfall approach by Kotabe and Helsen. 28 Although these firms pursue incremental internationalization, the sequence of entry is different. Firms in Cluster 3 and 5 have strong intensity and often launch their new products in their home mar- kets first, and then introduce them in more advanced overseas markets, fol- lowed by less-developed markets. Firms with weaker marketing capabilities (for example, firms in Cluster 1) often introduce their products in home markets first and then launch them in developing markets (such as Africa, Latin America, or the BRIC countries).
For firms in Cluster 1, the time span between their product launch in their home markets and in foreign markets was 53 years for Doosan (Korea) and 35 years for Hysong (Korea). This process took a longer duration of time because these firms generally had weak internationalization capabilities due to their inadequate R&D and marketing intensity. Moreover, firms in traditional indus- tries tend to have a domestic market focus and thus frequently expand overseas only when they experience difficulties in their home markets. In contrast, firms in Cluster 4 and 6 expand rapidly into a greater number of foreign markets and tend to adopt a more proactive approach to internationalization. They are also more likely to pursue multiple modes of entry, such as licensing agreements, strategic alliances, or greenfield investments to speed up their internationaliza- tion process. These firms often take the sprinkler strategy of internationaliza- tion, 29 which means their international expansions often take place within a relatively short space of time after the firms are established. The time difference between the beginning of their home market operations and their international expansion is about 3 to 4 years on average. It is also partly due to the fact that the life cycle of the products in Cluster 4 and Cluster 6 are relatively short com- pared to those of firms in traditional industries.
In addition, the limited size of the home markets for niche products from some of these firms provides a stronger impetus for them to international- ize sooner after they have established their strong presence in domestic markets.
In many cases, these firms have a global vision from the outset and they develop products with the global market in mind. Consequently, a significant differ- ence in the entry timing exists between firms that have a strong R&D intensity (e.g., knowledge-intensive, as in Cluster 4 and Cluster 6) and those that have a Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 125 relative weak R&D intensity (e.g., non knowledge-intensive firms, as in Cluster 1). There are also noticeable differences in the degree of expansion, includ- ing number of countries entered, for firms having strong marketing intensity.
The majority of such firms are from Cluster 3 and tend to establish a significant network of international distributors over a short period of time. For example, Hutchison-Whampou and Esprit Holding currently have over 40 distributors worldwide. Likewise, both Samsung and LG have more than 30 international distributors, while Acer (Taiwan) and LG have agents or distributors in 20 countries.
In sum, firms that are high on R&D intensity tend to expand internation- ally soon after their foundation. Our findings suggest the emergence of the born- global internationalization for firms of this nature. Previous studies considered a firm’s internationalization that occurs once a firm successfully establishes a strong presence in its home market, for instance, firms in Cluster 1. However, our results indicate that firms that are high on R&D intensity tend to pursue their domestic and overseas expansions almost simultaneously. This suggests that many firms in this sector may no longer consider international markets as a simple adjunct to their domestic markets, and they tend to develop their overall business strategies with the global markets in mind. On the other hand, firms that are low on R&D intensity enter overseas markets over a longer period of time than those that are high on R&D intensity. These firms are mostly from Cluster 1 and 3, focusing on domestic markets first and then expend internation- ally. Due to their limited resources and capabilities, firms in Cluster 1 follow the gradual approach to international expansion to reduce risks and uncertainties.
Moreover, these firms are more likely to enter geographically close countries.
Target Market Selection Market selection is a critical element of a firm’s entry strategy. The knowl- edge-intensive firms are often in Cluster 2, 4, and 6, and are more likely to be influenced by firms’ relationships with their clients and by global industry trends, instead of geographical proximity of overseas markets. More specifically, our findings can be summarized as follows.
First, firms that are high on R&D intensity are influenced by global indus- try trends and therefore gravitate toward dominant markets in their particular fields. For instance, firms in Cluster 4 and 6 target developed markets, such as the U.S. and European markets, which offer these firms greater market opportu- nities. In particular, in the IT services sector, firms often gravitate toward devel- oped countries because that is the location of their key customers. In short, firms with relatively more advanced technology, such as Cluster 5, efficiency-seeking is one of the important motives for them to target developed countries. These firms possess strong marketing and R&D capabilities, which enable them effec- tively and efficiently to coordinate resources from many parts of the world into outputs that are sold in developed countries. At the same time, firms in Cluster 2 and 4 focus on trading and exporting. Therefore market-seeking is the key motive for these firms, which most likely target developing markets. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 126 Second, in some cases, “following the clients” is an important determi- nant for the initial market selection especially for firms that are high on R&D intensity. The additional benefit of doing so is that existing contacts with U.S. cli- ents can sometimes lead to export opportunities elsewhere. For example, Kunda (Taiwan) signed OEM contracts with companies in the U.S., and such deals led the company to new overseas business in Europe via the dealer networks of its U.S. clients. There are also several cases where referrals by a client to a third party led to new export business for a company. Therefore, market selection can be driven by business opportunities provided by the network of business associates. In other words, “following the clients” influences a firm’s subsequent market selection decisions as clients in the first export market often provide leads in other markets. Moreover, managers’ pre-existing contacts gained from prior employment can also lead directly to export orders. For instance, both TSMC (Taiwan) and UMC (Taiwan) began exporting since their foundation because managers at these firms received orders from overseas clients for whom they have worked before. These examples present strong evidence indicating the important influence of network connections on a firm’s market selection decisions.
Third, firms in Cluster 1 target markets with geographic proximity, mainly in Asian and the BRIC countries. This is largely due to the kinship-based culture prevalent in the Asian business context. 30 In some cases, the BRIC markets are also targeted because of strong growth in demand in these markets. Moreover, some firms in Cluster 1 focus on markets with low levels of competition, such as markets in Africa, to reduce their risk of failure and ensure their successful inter- nationalization. Entry Mode Besides market selection, entry mode is another critical element of a firm’s internationalization strategy. As to the choice of initial entry modes in the foreign market, for firms in Cluster 1, export and overseas sales subsidiaries are the two main entry modes in the developing countries, which they often tar- get first. In addition, the majority of firms in Cluster 4 and 6 are subcontractors and follow the clients to other foreign markets. Therefore, the common entry mode for these firms is sales and production subsidiaries, such as the contractual entry mode. A number of firms in Cluster 2 established R&D centers in overseas markets to obtain advanced technological know-how, and such efforts are often followed by the establishment of sales and production subsidiaries.
Firms in Cluster 5 often establish marketing subsidiaries first and then overseas production facilities later as a way to establish and maintain their strong brand names. In Cluster 5, the majority of firms first set up marketing subsidiaries to promote their brands and then establish production subsidiaries to further strengthen their brand equity. Moreover, firms in this cluster also tend to use alternative entry modes for particular markets. For example, Samsung enters an overseas market via a joint venture with a local company. Moreover, Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 127 these types of firms also use licensing agreements or strategic alliances to accel- erate their internationalization process.
Most firms in Cluster 3 tend to adopt a direct selling mode and use agen- cies or distributors. A number of companies in this cluster sell directly to their end-users, to their wholesale buyers or large retail chains. Some of the firms in this cluster set up production subsidiaries before or after sales subsidiaries in neighboring countries. For example, Hutchison-Whampou (Hong Kong) has a licensing agreement with a Japanese firm that manufactures and distributes their products throughout Asia. These firms also tailor their entry mode depend- ing on the particular characteristics of individual countries. For example, Li- Fung (Hong Kong) sells directly to an agency in China but uses a local agency in Hong Kong. Esprit Holding (Hong Kong) sells to its wholesale buyers in the target markets, except China where it has three agencies because of a very frag- mented Chinese market.
Product Strategies Product strategy is another important decision a firm has to make in its international expansion. In our research, we focus on two aspects of prod- uct strategies, namely, product development and product range. In numerous cases, new product development is the prerequisite for a firm’s internationaliza- tion effort, especially in knowledge-intensive industries, i.e., firms in Cluster 2, 4, 5, and 6. This is a fast-changing industry sector with frequent innovations launched on a regular basis. Thus, firms that aspire to succeed in the interna- tional market are often required to constantly develop new products to stay ahead of competition. Many firms that are high on R&D intensity focus on developing products that can be marketed and sold internationally. For example, Wipro (India) and Infosys seek to design new product offerings suitable for key international markets, rather than for the domestic market. The rapid interna- tional expansion undertaken by Honhai (Taiwan), MediaTek (Taiwan), Infosys (India), and Samsung (Korea) can be clearly linked to their very strong commit- ment to product and service innovations.
On the other hand, firms that are low on R&D intensity (i.e., Cluster 1 and Cluster 3) tend to adapt their products initially launched in domestic mar- kets for overseas markets later on. This may be due to their limited knowledge and capabilities in developing new products for international marketplaces.
Moreover, traditional firms of this nature with limited resources and techno- logical capabilities tend to develop products for their home markets first and then attempt to adapt these products for their overseas markets. Therefore, it is often the case that these firms expand internationally well after their domestic operation.
Product range is another important element of product strategies. Firms that are high on marketing intensity often provide a wider range of products, e.g., firms in Cluster 2, 3, and 5. Since these firms focus on sales and market- ing, they need to provide more products to sustain their market positions. For example, Acer (Taiwan) often finds that its products are overtaken by more Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 128 specialized offerings from competitors. Similarly, competition from low-cost economies in supplying design-intensive products directly led to the decline of UMC (Taiwan), which produces IC design chips. Such cases illustrate the impor- tance of choosing appropriate product ranges for a firm’s internationalization efforts.
In summary, product strategies and product ranges are important deci- sions as a firm internationalizes its operations because the development of com- petitive products enables a firm to expand successfully from its existing markets to new countries or regions. In short, a wide range of products offerings can be found in firms with a stronger marketing focus (i.e., firms in Cluster 2, 3, and 5) whereas firms in Group 4 and 6 tend to offer core products or a narrow product line. In regard to market segmentation, substantial differences also exist across firms in the six different clusters. Specifically, firms in Cluster 5 penetrate global markets by differentiated products and distinguishing brand names, while firms in Cluster 2, 4, and 6 tend to focus on niche markets by providing a nar- row product line and differentiated products. Firms in Cluster 2 use their own brand names to enter markets in developing countries but use the OEM mode in developed markets. Finally, firms in Cluster 1 tend to focus on mass markets.
Internationalization Typologies: Propositions Development Taken together, in terms of target market selection, a significant number of firms in Cluster 2 and 4 gravitate toward “lead markets,” especially the U.S.
and the European markets. For firms in Cluster 3 seeking export markets, geo- graphically close markets are a preferred choice. Firms in Cluster 1 tend to focus on the BRIC and developing economies where competition is relatively weak.
The market selection for firms that are high on R&D intensity (knowledge-inten- sive firms) is more likely to be influenced by their relationships with clients and global industry trends, instead of geographic or psychological proximity of over- seas markets.
Regarding product and market segment strategies, firms in Cluster 2, 4, and 5 tend to pursue their new product development with a niche market focus. In particular, firms in Cluster 2 (such as Honhai from Taiwan) primarily develop products for niche markets and then gradually penetrate upper market segments to compete with existing global players. As for internationalization speed, firms that are high on R&D intensity tend to internationalize soon after inception, while firms that are low on R&D intensity prefer to undertake gradual internationalization. In short, for firms that are high on R&D intensity, evidence suggests that they pursue early internationalization, undertake new product development focusing on the requirements of international markets, and gravi- tate toward lead markets in their particular industry sectors.
Based on the above analysis, we develop a number of propositions that summarize the internationalization strategies of firms of different types, as identified in our cluster analysis. As noted, compared to their peers from devel- oped countries, firms from emerging or newly industrialized economies pursue very different paths in their efforts of becoming global. Some firms efficiently Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 129 coordinate resources from many parts of the world into outputs that are sold wherever they are most highly valued. Other firms are primarily exporters that add value by moving outputs from where they are to locations where they are needed.
Following, we present a simpler categorization of these firms by reduc- ing the six clusters into four groups (see Figure 2 in the Appendix). We group clusters 2, 4, and 6 into Group C because the similarities among the three clus- ters exceed their differences. As a result we have four groups—A, B, C, and D— instead of six clusters. Then we develop propositions that summarize the essence of the internationalization strategies of firms in each the four groups.
Multinational Challenger (Group A) Firms in Group A (i.e., Cluster 5) are multinational challengers. Examples of this type include Samsung and LG. Firms in this group are truly global play- ers in the world economy. They are involved in the most important value chain activities, which require the highest level of both R&D and marketing invest- ments. Their competitive strategies are similar to those of multinational enter- prises from the most developed economies, and include such factors as strong brand names, technological innovation, and globally integrated networks of operations. Firms in this group have strong organizational capabilities and are diversified in their products and geographical coverage in the global markets.
With strong brands and technological capabilities, firms in Group A often target advanced global markets and penetrate multiple markets within a short period of time. These firms adopt new product strategies and focus on product differentiation. This type of firms represents true multinational challengers that implement internationalization strategies globally.
Proposition 1: For multinational challengers, their internationalization strategy can be best summarized as follows: They target global markets; adopt a new product development strategy and pursue a wide product range; develop a global brand- ing strategy and focus on product and process innovation; and take a more pro- active approach to internationalization and penetrate multiple overseas markets simultaneously. Global Exporter and Importer (Group B) Firms in Group B (i.e., Cluster 3) are global exporters and importers.
Examples of this type include Hutchuson-Whampou (Hong Kong) and Li-Fung Ltd. (Hong Kong). These firms are generally older and transformed into con- glomerates from family-owned businesses. They focus on import and export activities and profit from global trading. Firms of this type have sufficient capital and heavily invest in selling and marketing, but they are not involved in high- value-added activities due to the nature of their business and the lack of firm- specific technological know-how. Firms in this category have management skills, such as global logistics and supply chain management. They often undertake an incremental approach to internationalization and adapt existing domestic prod- ucts for overseas markets. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 130 Proposition 2: For global exporters and importers, their internationalization strategy can be best summarized as follows: They adopt an incremental approach toward internationalization and expand to one overseas market at a time; target close markets first; and adapt existing domestic products for overseas markets and pro- vide a wide range of products. OEM/ODM (Group C) Firms in Group C (i.e., Cluster 2, 4, and 6) are often specialized in cer- tain value-chain activities and/or engaged in OEM or ODM activities for major customers from the Triad economies. Examples of this type include Honghai, Taiwan (Cluster 2), TSMC, Taiwan (Cluster 4), and Lite-on, Taiwan (Cluster 6).
Firms in this group can be further defined as global market niche players, OEM/ ODM technology leaders, and OEM/ODM technology followers. The difference between global market niche players and OEM/ODM technology leaders lies in their capability and resources in sales and marketing. Global market niche play- ers have more resources to invest and focus more on selling and distributions so they can become global leaders in a particular field. OEM/ODM technology leaders are specialized in innovation and have pursued limited activities in mar- keting and selling. As for the difference between OEM/ODM technology leaders and follower, technology leaders spend more capital and resources on R&D to ensure the development of cutting edge innovations. On the other hand, OEM/ ODM technology followers adapt advanced technologies for creative imitation, which also enables them to enter international markets successfully.
However, the similarities among these three types of firms are more fun- damental. Niche players target markets that major global players often ignore.
They generally pursue intensive technological innovations and develop highly adaptive design and manufacturing capabilities. Their competitive advantage rests on their lower costs (and therefore low prices) but also on high quality due to their tremendous manufacturing capabilities and technological innovations.
Firms in this group are strongly R&D driven and they focus on knowledge- intensive activities and are highly flexible and responsive to market demands.
Compared to firms in groups A and B, these firms have relatively narrow prod- uct lines and often specialize in knowledge-intensive contractual manufacturing activities due to their limited capitals and market expertise. Moreover, firms in Group C focus on OEM and ODM activities. In the high-tech sector, the major- ity of firms in Group C are born-global firms. Due to their process or product innovations, firms in Group C often expand to overseas markets soon after their inception. These firms tend to focus on a core business targeting at niche markets.
Proposition 3: For OEM/ODM firms, their internationalization strategy can be best summarized as follows: They adopt the born-global model toward international- ization and penetrate multiple overseas markets at once; follow the clients and target advanced markets in the U.S., Europe, and Japan; establish a market pres- ence in niche markets; and adopt a new product development strategy but focus on core products. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 131 Regional Exporter/Importer (Group D) Geographically focused firms derive and leverage their advantages by serving the needs of particular regions, e.g., the BRICs and developing coun- tries. Their competitive advantage rests largely on their cheap resources, such as labor. Firms in this group, such as Hanwha Corp. (Korea) and Doonsan (Korea), benefit from their cost advantages through high-volume production of stan- dardized goods and lower labor costs in their home countries. They differ from other types of firms in that they are geographically concentrated on the markets of the less-competitive markets to leverage on their strengths and at the same time avoid fierce competition. Constrained by their limited market expertise and technological capabilities, firms in this group are often engaged in low-value- adding activities.
Proposition 4: For regional exporters/importers, their internationalization strategy can be best summarized as follows: They focus on exports and establish sales sub- sidiaries as the initial entry mode; adopt the incremental approach towards inter- nationalization and expand to one overseas market at a time; consider developing countries before entering advanced markets; and adapt existing domestic products for foreign markets and focus on mass markets with low prices. Conclusion This study has provided a typology that categorizes firms from emerg- ing or newly industrialized economies in the context of their internationaliza- tion strategies. Based on our hierarchical cluster analysis, we have investigated the patterns of internationalization strategies pursued by these firms and have categorized them as: multinational challengers; global exporters and import- ers; OEM/ODM technology leaders and followers; and regional exporters and importers. Each of these four types of firms pursues different internationaliza- tion strategies.
For firms of certain characteristics (irrespective of country of origin, size, and age) there is an optimal internationalization strategy to follow. There are also different entry modes for each of the four types of firms. For instance, for firms in Group A, to establish and sustain their strong brand names, these firms often establish marketing subsidiaries first and then overseas production facili- ties later. Firms in Group A internationalize rapidly and focus on global markets much more than their domestic markets. In contrast, firms in Group B use agen- cies or distributors when internationalizing. The majority of firms in Group C use subcontractors and follow clients to other foreign markets. The common entry mode for firms in Group C is to set up sales and production subsidiar- ies. A number of firms in Group A and C build up research and development centers in overseas markets to obtain advanced technological know-how, and such efforts are followed by sales and production subsidiaries. Firms in Group D mainly set up sales subsidiaries and use exporting. Figure 3 summarizes the vari- ous approaches. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 132 Firms from emerging and newly industrialized nations possess different characteristics compared to their more advanced peers from the Triad econo- mies. Firms from emerging nations, therefore, should develop their own strate- gies in their internationalization processes instead of following the so-called “best practices” based on the past internationalization experiences of firms from more advanced economies. For example, managers of firms in Group A should devise internationalization strategies to penetrate global markets by differenti- ated products and distinguished brand names while managers of firms in Group FIGURE 3. International Entr y Mode Sequences for Each Type of Firm CenterPlants Office Plants ResearchSubsidiaries Research Center PlantsSubsidiaries Plants SubsidiariesDomestic Business Activities Export (agent/distributor) BProduction Marketing Production International Markets R&DSales R&D ProductionSales Production Sales ABCDCExport Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 133 C ought to focus on niche markets by providing a narrow product line and dif- ferentiation product strategies. Managers of firms in Group C should use their own brand names to enter markets in developing countries but use the OEM mode in markets in developed countries, e.g., ASUS (Taiwan). With regards to pricing, firm managers in Group A and C offer high-quality and differentiated products; managers from firms in Group D offer lower-price products, and firms in Group B offer moderate prices but good services (e.g., complete supply chain management) to customers. Regarding target customers, firms in Group C pri- marily focus on B2B clients whereas firms from the other groups tend to focus directly on B2C end-users. Table 4 offers a detailed summary of these findings.
Firms that compete in the most advanced markets are those that possess strong technological know-how and financial resources. For firms that are less competitive, it would be a better strategy to pursue less-competitive markets at the initial stage of internationalization. This is, in fact, a strategy that has been successfully followed by a number of firms in our sample.
Notes 1. Boston Consulting Group, “The New Global Challengers: How 100 Top Companies from Rapidly Developing Economies are Changing the World,” 2006; Goldman Sachs, “Dream- ing with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” Global Economies Paper No 99, 2003; World Investment Report, “Linkages, Value Chains, and Outward Investment: Internationalization Patterns of Developing Countries’ SMEs,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2006.
2. J.H. Dunning, “The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production: A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions,” Journal of International Business Studies, 19/1 (Spring 1986): 1-31.
3. J. Johanson and F. Weidersheim-Paul, “The Internationalization of the Firm—Four Swedish Cases,”Journal of International Business Studies, 12/3 (October 1975): 305-322; J. Johanson and J.E. Vahlne, “The Internationalization Process of the Firm—A Model of Knowledge Development, and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,” Journal of International Business Studies, 8/1 (Spring/Summer 1977): 23-32; L.S. Welch and R. Loustarinen, “Internationaliza- tion: Evolution of a Concept,” Journal of General Management, 14/2 (Winter 1986): 34-55.
Firm TypePosition (Market segment) PricePeople (Clients)Place (Marketing Mode) Emerging EconomiesDeveloped Countries A Global Markets High Quality Product DifferentiationEnd-Users Brand Name Brand Name B Mass Market Moderate Price Good Ser viceEnd-Users Brand Name Brand Name C Niche Market Product DifferentiationB2B Brand Name OEM D Mass Market Low Price End-Users Brand Name None TABLE 4. Marketing Strategies Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 134 4. A.H. Amsden and W.W. Chu, Beyond Late Development: Taiwan’s Upgrading Policies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003); M.F. Guillén and E. García-Canal, “The American Model of the Mul- tinational Firm and the ‘New’ Multinationals from Emerging Economies,” The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23/2 (May 2009): 23-35; L. Kim, “Stages of Development of Indus- trial Technology in a Developing Country: A Model,” Research Policy, 9/3 (July 1980): 254- 277; H. Rui and G. Yip, “Foreign Acquisitions by Chinese Firms: Theoretical Implications,” conference paper, Conference on Internationalization of Indian and Chinese Firms, Brunel University, 2007; A.L.Saxenian, “From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China,” Studies in Comparative Interna- tional Development, 40/2 (June 2005): 35-61; H. Yeung, Transnational Corporations and Business Networks: Hong Kong Firms in the ASEAN Region (London: Routledge, 1998).
5. Y. Luo and R. Tung, “International Expansion of Emerging Market Enterprises: A Spring- board Perspective,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38/4 (July 2007): 481-498; O.N.
Toulan, “The Impact of Market Liberalization on Vertical Scope: The Case of Argentina,” Strategic Management Journal, 23/6 (June 2002): 551-560.
6. T. Khanna and J.W. Rivkin, “Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Groups in Emerging Markets,” Strategic Management Journal, 22/1 (January 2001): 45-74; L. Kim and Y. Kim, “Innovation in a Newly Industrializing Country: A Multiple Discriminant Analysis,” Management Science, 31/3 (March 1985): 312-322; J.A. Mathews, “Competitive Advantages of the Latecomer Firm: A Resource Based Account of Industrial Catch-Up Strategies,” Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19/4 (December 2002): 467-488; Saxenian, op. cit.
7. Zhenrong Shi, Fu-Yuan Xiao, Minn Song, Stan Shih, Growing Global: Corporate Vision Master- class (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2000) 8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. M. Kotabe and K. Helsen, Global Marketing Management (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004) 11. W.W. Chu, “Can Taiwan’s Second Movers Upgrade via Branding?” Research Policy, 38/6 (July 2009): 1054-1065.
12. Johanson and Vahlne, op. cit.
13. M.K. Erramilli, R. Sivastava, and S.S. Kim, “Internationalization Theory and Korean Mul- tinationals,”Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16/1 (April 1999): 29-45; Welch and Lous- tarinen, op. cit.
14. R.C. Shrader, B. Oviatt, and P. McDougall, “How New Ventures Exploit Trade-offs among International Risk Factors: Lessons for the Accelerated Internationalization of the 21st Cen- tury,” Academy of Management Journal, 43/6 (December 2000): 1227-1247.
15. B.M. Oviatt, and P.P. McDougall, “Challenges for Internationalization Process Theory: The Case of International New Ventures,” Management International Review, 37 (Special Issue 1997/2): 85-99.
16. G. Knight and S.T. Cavusgil, “The Born Global Firm: A Challenge to Traditional Interna- tionalization Theory,” in S. Cavusgil and T. Madsen, eds., Advances in International Marketing, Volume 8 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996): 11-26.
17. Ibid.
18. Information taken from .
19. There are 21 Chinese firms within the initial sample. However, many of them are in gas, oil, and refining businesses. We exclude these firms because the motives and strategies of their internationalization are largely driven by natural allocation of resources instead of market forces. We also exclude Chinese firms that are in infrastructure and financial services because the intangible goods produced by these firms are not marketed and traded globally due to the unique nature of these markets and Chinese firms in our sample are excluded because they are not exposed to global competition.
20. H. Berry, “The Strategies and Structures of Multinational Corporations,” Wharton Business School Research Paper, June 2009, pp. 1-59; B.D. Rapkin and D.A. Luke, “Cluster Analysis in Community Research: Epistemology and Practice,” American Journal of Community Psychol- ogy, 21/2 (1993): 247-277.
21. R. Januszewska, D. Tagarino, M. Dagupen, J. Viaene, and D. Padua, “Consumer Segments for Fresh Strawberries in the Philippines,” Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Market- ing, 18/3-4 (October 2006): 139-165.
22. B. Davis and W.A. French, “Exploring Advertising Usage Segments among the Aged,” Jour- nal of Advertising Research, 29/1 (February/March 1989): 22-29. Internationalization Strategies of Emerging Markets Firms CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 53, NO. 1 FALL 2010 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 135 23. S.H.C. Tai and J.L.M Tam, “A Comparative Study of Chinese Consumers in Asian Markets: A Lifestyle Analysis,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9/1 (1996): 25-42.
24. L. Shrum, J. McCarty, and T.M. Lowrey, “Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy,” Journal of Advertising, 24/2 (Summer 1995): 71- 82.
25. J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
26. P.S. Aulakh, M. Kotabe, and T. Teegen, “Export Strategies and Performance of Firms from Emerging Economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico,” Academy of Management Journal, 42/3 (June 2000): 342-361.
27. H.G. Barkema and F. Vermeulen, “International Expansion through Start-Up or Acquisition:
A Learning Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, 41/1 (February 1998): 7-26.
28. Kotabe and Helsen, op. cit.
29. Ibid.
30. E. Yin and C.J. Choi, “The Globalization Myth: The Case of China,” Management International Review, 45 (Special Issue 2005): 103-120. Copyright of California Management Review is the property of California Management Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.