``Glocalization’’ of business activities: a ``glocal

strategy’’ approach

GoÈran Svensson
School of Management and Economics, VaÈxjoÈ University and School of
Economics and Comercial Law, GoÈteborg University, Sweden

Keywords
International business,
Globalization, Multinationals,
Strategy
Abstract
The topic of this article provides a
discussion on the importance of
well-defined concepts and
approaches used by scholars and
by practitioners in various
contexts. It is troublesome when
the use of a concept or an
approach is ambiguous and
confusing. The discussion focuses themselves and their research in relation to
on, and is exemplified through, the other scholars’ research. Concepts and
globalization of business activities
and the term ``global strategy’’.
The widespread use of popular
jargon cannot cover the fact that a Practitioners may use different concepts and
genuine or true global strategy
approach appears to be a
managerial utopia. The terms
``glocal strategy’’ and the
``glocalization’’ of business
activities are introduced to
enhance the accuracy of the
present usage by scholars and by
practitioners of the term global
strategy and the phenomenon
often described as the
globalization of business
activities.
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0025-1747]
[6]
Introduction
In literature, different concepts and
approaches are continuously being
developed. They are developed and used in
order to put forward and describe various
real world phenomena as the result of
research efforts. Different concepts and
approaches are also used to position the
research performed. Scholars may use
concepts and approaches to position
approaches may also be used to limit the
scope of a specific research project.
approaches to describe their ongoing and
future business activities. In addition, they
may use concepts and approaches to
illustrate and promote a product, a brand, or
other issues of importance for the company.
The importance that a concept or an
approach provides a correct picture is
crucial. Otherwise, the supposed receivers or
audience may be misled and discontent.
Accordingly, there may be a mismatch
between the receivers’ or the audience’s
expectations and perceptions if a concept or
approach is used ambiguously. Therefore,
the importance of well-defined and correctly
applied concepts and approaches is a
necessity. Existing definitions and
applications should reflect unifying features
and common denominators in commonly
used contexts. Otherwise, scholars, as well as
practitioners, may not be able to
communicate properly with each other. In
addition, the supposed receivers or audience
may be misled if a concept or an approach is
ambiguous. It may cause confusion and
misunderstanding and in the end lead to
frustration and dissatisfaction among the
potential receivers or audience.
The current issue andfull text archive of this journal is available at
http://w ww .emerald-library.com /ft
Objective
There are widespread concepts and
approaches that are used in various contexts
and that do not reflect the same meaning in
different contexts, or even catch the core
significance of their supposed or original
meanings. One such concept or approach is
the term ``global strategy’’, which is
frequently used in different contexts and
meanings. There is an evident disagreement
of the meaning and the appropriate usage of
the concept or approach of global strategy
among scholars and practitioners. The term
global strategy appears also to be used, both
by scholars and by practitioners, in order to
attract attention or an audience, and has now
become popular jargon.
Nevertheless, the multiple meaning and
usage of the term is confusing and
misleading. There is a necessity to further
explore and describe the concept and
approach of global strategy. A re-definition of
the term may assist in advancing it beyond
present boundaries. However, the objective
of this article is less pretentious. It is limited
to throwing light upon the meaning and
usage of an ambiguous term both in
literature and in practice. At best, a renewal
and refinement of the term global strategy
will be achieved. The topic of this article is
therefore exemplified and described through
the widespread and popular term ``global
strategy’’, which is widely applied in many
different contexts. It is also widely used to
represent different meanings, depending
very much upon the user. The term global
strategy is explored and described in the next
section.
A global strategy
A company’s global strategy is closely related
to its corporate strategy. The corporate
strategy guides the performance of a
company’s overall business activities and the
GoÈran Svensson allocations of resources to achieve
``Glocalization’’ of business established business goals. Yip (1989)
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ provides a detailed framework for evaluating
approach
whether and how to globalize an individual
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 company’s corporate strategy. The
framework emphasizes the potentials for
achieving competitive benefits and provides
illustrations of companies that have applied
globalization issues in their corporate
strategies. The formulation of a global
strategy is a major challenge in itself, but its
execution requires far-reaching changes to
be made in corporate structures and
procedures (e.g. Lorenz, 1986).
Levitt (1983) makes a distinction between
the multinational corporation and the global
corporation. The multinational corporation
operates in a number of countries, and
adjusts its products and practices in each,
while the global corporation operates with
resolute constancy, as if the entire world, or
major regions of it, was a single entity. The
global corporation sells the same things in
the same way everywhere. Accordingly,
Levitt (1983) states that the uniformity of
global business activities should be applied
on a worldwide basis without local
adaptations. Keegan and Green (2000, p. 26)
define a global strategy as:
. . . a design to create a winning offering on a
global scale . . .
Consequently, they also apply a worldwide
approach to the term global strategy. Allio
(1989) states that global competitors exploit
the similarities between countries to
enhance the competitive advantage, while
the multidomestic or multinational
competitors exploit the differences between
countries.
Simon-Miller (1986) argues that the
adoption of a global strategy may give a
competitive advantage. In contrast to
multinational companies, global
corporations view the world or its major
regions as one entity instead of a collection of
national markets. These world marketers
compete on a basis of appropriate value, i.e.
an optimal combination of the marketing mix
that is identical in design and function. Yip
(1989, p. 31) distinguishes between a
multidomestic strategy and a global strategy:
. . . a multidomestic strategy seeks to
maximize worldwide performance by
maximizing local competitive advantage,
revenues, or profits; a global strategy seeks to
maximize worldwide performance through
sharing and integration . . .
On one hand, the setting for a pure
multidomestic strategy is characterized by
the following: that there is no particular
pattern of market participation; that the
product offering is fully customized in each
country; that the location of value-added
activities are restricted to each country; that
the marketing approach is local; and that the
competitive moves are stand-alone by
country. On the other hand, the setting for a
pure global strategy is characterized by the
following: that there is a significant share in
major markets of market participation; that
the product offering is fully standardized
worldwide; that the location of value-added
activities are concentrated ± one activity in
each different country; that the marketing
approach is uniform on a worldwide basis;
and that the competitive moves are
integrated across countries.
Grune (1989, p. 10) offers an explanation of
how a global approach differs from a
multinational one. For example, the
multinational companies have three
characteristics, namely that they pursue
independent strategies in each foreign
market, their subsidiaries are essentially
autonomous operations, and while they allow
headquarters to coordinate financial controls
and marketing, each subsidiary is a profit
center with decentralized strategy and
operations. A global company operates as an
integrated system in which all subsidiaries
are interdependent in terms of operations
and strategies. Jeannet and Hennessey (1992)
argue that a global strategy represents an
application of a common set of strategic
principles across most world markets. When
a company pursues a global strategy, it looks
at the world market as a whole rather than at
markets on a country-by-country basis.
Lewis and Housden (1998) use the term global
strategy to represent standardized products,
standardized promotions, and low need for
localized marketing and high advantages of
standardized marketing.
Keegan (1989) writes that a global strategy
is based upon scanning the world business
environment to identify opportunities,
threats, trends, and resources. He means that
the global effort takes great discipline, great
creativity, and constant effort, but the
reward is not just success, it is survival.
Dahringer and MuÈhlbacher (1991) use the
term global to emphasize customer
similarities regardless of the geographic
areas in which they are located, but it does
not ignore differences among markets. They
mean that these differences have to be
considered when companies perform and
implement their business activities. Yip and
Coundouriotis (1991) regard the global
strategy as a process of worldwide
integration of strategy formulation and
implementation. In contrast, a multi-
domestic approach allows the independent
development of strategy by country or
[7]
GoÈran Svensson regional units. Kim and Mauborgne (1993)
``Glocalization’’ of business present five characteristics that are assumed
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ to make a global strategy work, namely head
approach
office’s familiarity with local conditions, two-
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 way communication between head office and
subsidiaries, consistent decision-making
practices, ability to refute decisions, and
provide explanations for final decisions.
Hout et al. (1982) write that a global strategy
is to think of the world as one market instead
of as a collection of national markets. A
company with such a global focus formulates
long-term strategy for the company as a
whole and then orchestrates the strategies of
local subsidiaries. Finally, Kanter and
Dretler (1998) advance a different view, in
which the term global strategy is
synonymous with holistic approach, not
necessarily an international one, that can
tighten local integration in the interest of
global goals.
The overall or the holistic approach of the
term global strategy is evident. Accordingly,
the term global strategy implies the focus on
similarities, standardization,
homogenization, concentration, and
coordination on a worldwide basis. The
origin and the emergence of the global
strategy approach and the globalization of
business activities are explored and
described in the next section.
Origin and globalization
The globalization of business activities and
the term global strategy emerged in the early
1980s. Levitt (1983, p. 92) is often considered
as the first to recognize the trend towards
globalization and states that:
Companies must learn to operate as if the
world were one large market ± ignoring
superficial regional and national
differences . . .
In addition, he argues that the companies
that do not adapt to the new global realities
will become victims of those that do.
However, McCloughry and James (1957) used
the term global strategy in the 1950s in their
book titled Global Strategy.
Johansson (2000) states that there are four
groups of variables that propel companies
towards globalization, namely the categories
of market, competition, cost, and
government. They are sometimes referred to
as the four major globalization drivers (Yip,
1989 and 1992). Originally, Yip (1989)
discusses and classifies the globalization
drivers. For example, the market drivers
consist of homogeneous needs, global
customers, global channels, and transferable
marketing. The cost drivers are categorized
[8]
as economies of scale and scope, learning and
experience, sourcing efficiencies, favorable
logistics, differences in country costs and
skills, and product development costs. The
government drivers are classified as
favorable trade policies, compatible technical
standards, and common marketing
regulations. Finally, the competitive drivers
consist of the interdependence between
countries and the competitors that globalize
or might globalize.
Sheth (1986) argues that companies doing
business in foreign markets probably do so
owing to factors other than an emerging
universality of consumer needs and wants.
He points out three possible reasons for the
emerging globalization of business activities
in the early 1980s, namely the access to
foreign markets, the increasing degree of
international standardization of products
and standards, and the increasing number of
worldwide mergers, acquisitions, and joint
ventures. Jeannet and Hennessey (1992)
mention a number of reasons for the
globalization of business activities such as
globalizing for internal efficiency,
globalizing to compete in homogeneous
markets, and globalizing for added synergies.
The indicators for the globalization of
business activities are proposed to be at the
customer level, at the market level, at the
industry level, and at the competitor level.
Furthermore, these indicators are
independent of each other, which means that
different levels of globalization may be
observed in each area. Dahringer and
MuÈ hlbacher (1991) state that a global
approach allows companies to achieve
concentration and coordination of activities,
which stimulate the companies’ efforts for
the globalization of business activities.
The origin of the term global strategy may
be traced principally to the early 1980s due to
a number of globalization trends that
emerged such as focus on similarities,
standardization, concentration, and
coordination of business activities on a
worldwide basis. The benefits and the
advantages of the global strategy approach
and the globalization of business activities
are explored and described in the next
section.
Benefits and advantages
The global strategy approach and the
globalization of business activities are
encouraged by a number of perceived
potential benefits and advantages. Yip (1992)
mentions four drivers of globalization. The
global strategy approach may improve the
GoÈran Svensson access to market drivers such as common
``Glocalization’’ of business customer needs, global customers, global
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ channels, transferable marketing, and
approach
leading markets. In addition companies are
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 stimulated by cost drivers such as economies
of scale, economies of scope (i.e. the gains
from spreading activities across multiple
product lines or businesses), sourcing
advantages, and duplication across
countries. An example of government drivers
is the introduction of ISO9000, which is a
global standard of quality certification
(Johansson, 2000). Finally, companies who go
global provide a strong incentive for other
firms to follow. Levitt (1983, p. 92) states that
companies:
. . . benefit from enormous economies of scale
in production, distribution, marketing, and
management . . .
Keegan and Green (2000) and Simon-Miller
(1986) also argue that the global strategy
approach and the globalization of business
activities may lead to substantial competitive
advantages in the marketplace.
Segal-Horn (1996) mentions other potential
benefits of a global strategy approach and the
globalization of business activities such as
the cost savings/reductions and the
restructuring of international logistic
operations. Furthermore, the advantages
may influence the design, purchasing,
manufacturing operations, packaging,
distribution, marketing, advertising,
customer service, software development,
making of standardized facilities,
methodologies, and procedures across
locations. Yip (1989), too, mentions a list of
benefits that may be achieved through the
globalization drivers such as cost reductions,
improved quality of products and programs,
enhanced customer preference, and
increased competitive leverage. He also
mentions some major drawbacks such as
reduction of responsiveness to local needs,
distance activities from the customer,
increased currency risk, reduction of
adaptation to local customer behavior and
the marketing environment, and local
competitiveness, all of which may be
sacrificed.
Jeannet and Hennessey (1992) argue that
there are various factors limiting the global
strategy approach and the globalization of
business activities. For example, they refer to
market characteristics, industrial
conditions, marketing institutions, and legal
restrictions. Keegan (1989) mentions two
motives for the globalization of business
activities. One is to take the advantage of
opportunities for growth and expansion and
the other is survival. Companies that fail to
pursue global opportunities will eventually
lose their domestic markets, since they may
be pushed aside by stronger and more
competitive global competitors. Dahringer
and MuÈhlbacher (1991) argue that two major
advantages may be obtained in the
implementation of the global strategy
approach and the globalization of business
activities, namely the concentration and the
coordination of business activities.
Concentration means centralized decision
making which is normally combined with a
high degree of standardization of business
activities. The experience curve may also be
improved through the coordination of
business activities. Lamont (1996) writes that
the global strategy approach encourages
initiatives to find new markets, new
segments, new niches, the developing of new
buying and selling opportunities, and
marketing across international boundaries.
The global strategy approach includes
specific tasks such as the organizing of
worldwide efforts, the research of domestic
and foreign markets, the finding of new
partners, the purchasing of comprehensive
support services, and the managing of the
costs of international transactions. Allio
(1989) argues that a global strategy becomes
critical when the need for local adaptation is
low and the benefits from global systems are
high, either as a result of economies of scale
or economies of scope.
Yip and Coundouriotis (1991) conclude that
the use of a global strategy approach can
potentially achieve one or more of four major
categories of benefits, namely reduced costs,
improved quality, enhanced customer
preference, and combined global resources.
For example, reduced costs may be achieved
through gaining economies of scale from
pooling production and other business
activities, moving to lower cost countries,
exploiting the flexibility of a global network,
and enhancing bargaining power with
governments, unions, and suppliers.
Improved quality may be achieved through
focusing resources on a smaller number of
products and programs. Enhanced customer
preferences may be obtained through
increasing global availability, serviceability,
and recognition. Finally, the combining of
global resources and using more locations for
attack and counter-attack may lead to an
increased competitive leverage. Kogut (1985)
identifies a set of global opportunities, such
as arbitrage opportunities (i.e. production
shifting, tax minimization, financial
markets, and information arbitrage),
leverage opportunities (i.e. global
coordination and political risk), and creating
compatible incentives, all of which
[9]
GoÈran Svensson emphasize adaptations of the global strategy
``Glocalization’’ of business approach and its related business activities.
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ Accordingly, the global strategy approach
approach
and the globalization of business activities
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 assume the achievement of benefits and
advantages. The ultimate outcome of these
potential benefits and advantages is
dependent upon the extent to which they are
theoretical potentials and influenced by
obstacles in the global business environment.
Usage and application
This section is dedicated to presenting a
selection of references that use and apply the
term global strategy in various contexts. As
the presentation proceeds, a diversity of the
usage and the application of the global
strategy approach are revealed. Most of them
emphasize the importance of adaptations to
local conditions, characteristics, and
circumstances in the marketplace. For
example, Malnight (1996) develops an
evolutionary perspective on how
multinational corporations define their
global strategy, where they locate their key
resources, and how they structure and
manage their operations. He argues that,
rather than being a planned process, each
phase represents a viable strategic response
to then-existing challenges and
opportunities. This signifies that the global
strategy approach is adapted to the specific
business environment. Rabstejnek (1989)
emphasizes the importance of the basics of a
global strategy approach, but at the same
time acknowledges the sensitivity to cultural
characteristics, customs, and other elements
that may be necessary in domestic markets.
Domzal and Unger (1987) state that a global
strategy approach emphasizes consumer
similarities across geographic borders and
strives for standardized marketing
strategies, while minimizing local
differences. Furthermore, they argue that the
companies that do not embrace a global
strategy approach will be placed at a
competitive disadvantage. Their usage of the
global strategy concept implies that firms
strive to identify global segments that share
the same psychographic characteristics. At
the same time, they recognize that there are
differences between markets.
Lindell and Karagozoglu (1997) go on to
apply the global strategy approach in an
international context. Their study
investigates the challenges and the
organizational responses of small- and
medium-sized R&D-oriented firms in the
internationalization process in Scandinavia
and the US. Their focus is mainly on the
[ 10 ]
international level, although they use the
global strategy concept. Henley (1989)
touches the area of international business,
though it is also expressed in terms of global
strategies. Koepfler (1989) also uses the global
strategy concept, but concludes that the
strategy must fit the products and the
services to the practices and the languages of
different markets. Porter (1986) argues that in
some global strategies, marketing should
play the part of tailoring rather than
standardizing to support an overall strategic
position. Simon-Miller (1986) writes that in
planning global strategies, economic
nationalism in the form of protective policies
or tax incentives for domestic producers
must be considered. The product itself is
standardized, but the branding, positioning,
and promotion may have to be modified to
reflect local conditions. Kogut (1985) states
that the key to understanding a global
strategy is to find the ways in which
competitive positions in one national market
change the economics for entry into other
countries and into other product lines. In
addition, he argues that global strategies
succeed by creating market procedures that
shape products to fit national needs.
Ellwood et al. (1999) write that if the
business objective is to penetrate a local
market in a developing region of the world,
then the global strategy would almost
certainly require investment at the licensing
or joint venture level. McCarthy and Puffer
(1997) use the concept of global strategy in
terms of a multinational context. Strategic
investment flexibility is found to depend on a
company’s original entry strategy and
tolerance of risk, as well as its assessment of
the specific legal and political environment,
industrial conditions, market readiness for
its products or services, competition, and the
investment required to establish a
sustainable competitive position. Katrak
(1983) studies two cases of global strategies in
multinational firms. One of the cases is when
the subsidiary is allowed to act as an
autonomous unit to maximize its own profits.
The other is when the subsidiary’s output
level is completely determined by the parent
company to maximize the latter’s global
profits. Kenyon and Mathur (1987) write that
international banking also has led to banks
taking a competitive marketing view. Those
adopting global strategies aim at dominance
by offering a wide variety of products, while
those adopting a segmentation strategy
target a narrow range of products and
customers. Bender (1985) argues that
enterprises that continue to adopt a regional,
national, or even multinational approach to
business are losing out to the competitive
GoÈran Svensson advantages of global organizations. In
``Glocalization’’ of business developing a global strategy, other economic
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ factors and business considerations that are
approach
important include the combined effects on
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 the business of varying rates of exchange
along with different inflation rates in
different nations.
Orlando (1997) argues that the relationship
between cross-national diversity and firm
performance is contingent upon a global
strategy approach. Bartlett (1982) concluded
that some arrangements actually hindered
the implementation of global strategies. The
arrangements he referred to were that each
company had already developed networks of
strong independent country subsidiaries, and
that an organizational structure thus had
developed in which the country managers’
knowledge of the national operating
environment gave them a dominant role in
key decisions, making them more
independent of a formulated global strategy.
Ralston et al. (1997) used the global strategy
approach in a corporate culture context
using the concept of multi-domestic strategy.
In addition, Anand and Delios (1996) used the
concept of multi-domestic strategy to
describe Japanese subsidiaries in India that
operated independently in terms of the
multinational corporation’s global strategies.
It is concluded that foreign entrants to the
region should be aware of, and be able to
respond to, the unique advantages of each
host country, and to the different strategies
and capabilities of their subsidiaries. Finally,
there are authors who reinforce the global
strategy concept further by using other
words such as ``total’’. For example, Yip (1992)
provided a guide on how to implement a
``total global strategy’’ successfully, and is of
three components. One involves
internationalizing the core strategy by
adapting it to the various international
markets.
Evidently, the usage of the term global
strategy is often applied in the context of
international or multinational contexts. This
means that the necessity for local adaptations
is acknowledged. One might say that the
concept appears to be misleading, misused,
and sometimes abused.
Misleading, misused and abused
The previous paragraphs have indicated that
the usage of the global strategy approach is
misleading, misused and abused. Segal-Horn
(1996) argues that few companies lend
themselves to ``naive’’ global strategies, since
all strategies require some degree of
adaptation to regional and national
conditions. In addition, she argues that the
popularity of the global strategy approach
has caused the term to be overused and
misused. Scholars and practitioners refer to a
global strategy approach when they actually
mean international or multinational. In
addition, they refer to it in a general sense of
anything connected with doing business
outside the domestic market:
The core of the standardization/adaptation
debate in international strategy is the
question of how far, if at all, it is appropriate
to design, market, and deliver standard
products and services across national
boundaries (Segal-Horn, 1996, p. 13).
Kotler (1986) argues that there are
circumstances where a multinational
company can gain benefits through increased
standardization of its marketing mix. There
are also circumstances where this strategy
would hurt the company. For example, he
writes:
. . . The issue can be framed in the following
way: Under what circumstances can a
company in Country X sell its product in
Country Y without changing product,
promotion, price, or place and earn a good
return . . . (Kotler, 1986, p. 13).
Kotler (1986) regards Levitt’s approach (1983)
as going back to a sales approach, which is a
step backwards in terms of a marketing
approach that recognizes local conditions,
characteristics, and circumstances. In
addition, Hammerly (1992) emphasizes the
necessity for matching global strategies with
national responses.
Wind (1986) introduces an approach to
think globally and to act locally. It suggests
that the overall design follows a worldwide
perspective, but that every detail of the
strategy takes into account the country
characteristics and cultural differences. He
writes:
By following the strategy of think globally, act
locally . . . changes in the world force us to
move away from thinking domestically . . .
avoid the pitfalls of inappropriate global
standardization and . . . employ marketing-
oriented approach and take advantage of our
understanding of the local conditions in each
one of the world markets . . . (Wind, 1986, p.
26).
Accordingly, the necessity of tailoring the
global strategy is inevitable (e.g. Champy,
1997) or as Porter (1986, p. 17) writes:
In some global strategies marketing should
play the role of tailoring and not
standardizing to support an overall strategic
position. In some cases, standardizing
marketing can lead to competitive advantages
that support the overall global strategy . . .
[ 11 ]
GoÈran Svensson Champy (1997) states that companies must
``Glocalization’’ of business value cultural and ethnic diversity, because
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ it is a pragmatic necessity for any company
approach
that wants to sell globally. He concludes:
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 Going global . . . It starts with recognizing that
the world has no center . . . customers will
differ from country to country and that they
will expect you to respect those differences.
Learn this or stay at home (Champy, 1997,
p. 25).
Simon-Miller (1986) comments that the so-
called open world markets may be
characterized by economic nationalism (e.g.
protective policies or tax incentives for
domestic producers). In planning global
strategies, the company should take into
account these barriers and discrepancies.
Sheth (1986) concludes that we do not need
the concept of global versus domestic
markets, but a concept of multiple markets
and writes:
In conclusion, we often mistake global
competition for global markets. As most
markets become more divergent within each
country, this approach tends to produce
overlapping segments across countries,
giving the illusion that markets are becoming
global . . . (Sheth, 1986, p. 11).
Accordingly, the apparent globalization of
business activities may be questioned. Grune
(1989) comments that in its broadest sense the
term global describes the worldwide
marketplace, but more often the term is used
to indicate a strategic approach to compete in
that worldwide marketplace. In this context,
the term global is usually applied as the
traditional multinational term. He also writes:
Coca-Cola is always cited as the classic global
product. Yet I understand that when Coca-
Cola introduced its Fanta orange drink
around the world it was willing to adapt ±
offering a more tart taste in Germany and a
sweeter drink for Italy (Grune, 1989, p. 12).
Evidently, the adaptation may also affect the
core product itself of a so-called global
product.
Jeannet and Hennessey (1992) write that,
for many, global is just a replacement term
for international and to many readers the
term global strategy suggests a company
represented everywhere and pursuing more
or less the same strategy. Lorenz (1986)
argues that the term globalization has no
single meaning. To some people, it means the
globalization of industries, while to others it
implies a shift towards global products as
well as global brands. To some people the
term describes a truly global
homogenization. He also states that the usage
is not clear and writes that:
The permutations of meaning are confusing,
not to say bewildering. To most people the
[ 12 ]
only certainties are that globalization has
become fashionable, and that it represents a
daunting new challenge of indefinable
proportions . . . (Lorenz, 1986, p. 51).
Sugiura (1990) focuses on how a global
strategy may be localized. Four localizations
are described in terms of the products, the
profits, the production, and the management
in order to achieve customer satisfaction. His
usage of the global term appears to be more
in accordance with an international or
multinational approach. Palich and Gomez-
Mejia (1999) conclude that companies that
desire to expand internationally require
managerial adaptation, due to differences
between national cultures. These dynamics
have not been used to represent the cultural
diversity that may hinder the work being
done to integrate and coordinate efforts as
required by global strategies. Hamel and
Prahalad (1985) conclude that a global
strategy must look beyond lower costs and
product standardization, and should think in
new ways about world competition. In
addition, Kogut (1985, p. 37) concludes:
However, centralization is constrained by the
need to maintain a careful balance between
local subsidiary responsiveness and the
coordination of the global benefits . . .
balancing is critical . . .
Roth and Morrison (1992) write that the
implementation of a global strategy requires
coordinating subsidiary activities across
country locations. The assumption often
made is that such coordination must be
managed by headquarters. Roth and
Morrison (1992) also introduce an alternate
approach in which subsidiaries within
multinational organizations are given
worldwide mandates to manage specific
products or product lines.
Kanter and Dretler (1998) present an
examination of the usage of the terms
``global’’ and ``globalization’’ by executives
and by media, which indicates the prevalence
of six major myths or misunderstandings.
For example, that the term global is
synonymous with international, meaning
simply having a presence in other countries
whether or not there is any connection
among activities across countries; that a
global strategy means doing everything the
same way everywhere; that globalizing
means becoming a stateless corporation with
no national or community ties; that
globalization requires abandoning country
images and values; that globalizing means
tacking on acquisitions or alliances in other
countries, without much integration or
change; and that to qualify as global, a
strategy must involve sales or operations in
another country. They conclude that four
GoÈran Svensson lessons may be learnt, namely the need for
``Glocalization’’ of business integration across functions and divisions,
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ the need to manage change, the need to
approach
respect local cultures, and the need to
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 understand a corporation’s culture. Finally,
McCloughry and James (1957) use the term
global strategy in terms of war strategies, but
emphasize the importance of localizing the
war and preventing it from becoming a
general world struggle.
. . . thereby not only achieves the maximum
concentration of force upon his immediate
object, but affords himself the best chance of a
peace, if only temporary, which will leave
him in possession of what he has gained . . .
(McCloughry and James, 1957, p. 54).
It is obvious that the term global strategy
causes myths and misunderstandings
amongst scholars and practitioners. The term
is therefore not suitable, since it contributes to
the overall confusion of corporate worldwide
strategies. The term global strategy tends to be
misleading, misused, and sometimes abused.
It appears to be a managerial utopia of a global
strategy approach. The potential managerial
utopia of the global strategy approach in a
managerial context is briefly illustrated
through the brief application of the Coca-Cola
case in the next section.
The Coca-Cola case
The Coca-Cola Company[1] is often
mentioned as a global company that
possesses a network of global products and
global business activities. In the 1970s and
1980s the company was moving towards
consolidation and centralized control. At the
time, the direction was to go global in order
to expand geographically into many of the
countries in which the company does
business today. In the 1990s the world began
to move in a different direction.
Globalization forced changes to appear so
fast that many countries could hardly
manage the new global environment. As
globalization continued, a large number of
local and national leaders began to question
the suitability of the ongoing worldwide
business development. They commenced
ensuring their sovereignty over their own
political, economic, and cultural destinies.
Daft (2000, p. 20) states:
As a result, the very forces that were making
the world more connected and homogeneous
were simultaneously triggering a powerful
desire for local autonomy and preservation of
unique cultural identity . . . The world was
demanding greater flexibility, responsiveness
and local sensivity . . .
In addition, he states:
. . . nimbleness, speed, and transparency and
local sensivity had become essential to
success . . . (Daft, 2000, p. 20).
Accordingly, the Coca-Cola Company sees
itself not as a global organization, but as a
multi-local enterprise (Anonymous, 1994).
The historical strength of the company came
from operating as a ``multi-local’’ business
that for decades relied heavily on the insight
of local bottling partners. That is because its
global strategy is to allow its businesses in
more than 200 countries to act according to
local need, local laws, local cultures, and so
on. Coca-Cola pursues an assumed global
strategy, allowing for differences in
packaging, distribution, and media that are
important to a particular country or
geographical area (Anonymous, 1988). Hence,
the global strategy is localized through a
specific geographic marketing plan. Instead
of applying a global strategy, it is likely to be
a strategy of thinking globally, but acting
locally. Daft (2000, p. 20) comments that:
. . . the global success of Coca-Cola is the
direct result of people drinking it one bottle at
the time in their own local communities. So
we are placing responsibility and
accountability in the hands of our colleagues
who are closest to those billions of individual
sales . . .
This signifies that if their local colleagues
develop an idea or a strategy that is the right
thing to do locally, and it fits within
fundamental values, policies, and standards
of integrity and quality of the Coca-Cola
Company, then they have the authority and
responsibility to do so. At the same time, they
will be accountable for the outcomes of the
idea or strategy.
It is apparent that a company such as the
Coca-Cola Company has realized the
weaknesses and the deficiencies of applying a
genuine or true global strategy approach in
their worldwide business activities. To be in
high favor of local ultimate consumer
adaptations is emphasized as crucial for their
business activities to be prosperous.
Therefore, their multi-local strategy
approach is still going strong and adequately
for the company’s worldwide business
activities. In addition, according to Daft
(2000) this will be the source of achieving
successful and prosperous business
activities, and maintaining them, during the
twenty-first century.
Implications and consequences
In the previous sections, it has been
illustrated that there are a large number of
scholars and practitioners who use the term
[ 13 ]
GoÈran Svensson global strategy in one way or another.
``Glocalization’’ of business However, its usage and applications are often
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ disparate, unclear and doubtful. A few of
approach
these have been briefly presented. The global
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 strategy approach sometimes appears to be
an etiquette or expression that is used just to
improve the image or the attractiveness of a
specific publication or a company’s strategic
approach. Normally it seldom refers to
anything more than a worldwide strategy
that is adapted to local conditions,
characteristics, and circumstances. Hence,
the application of a genuine or true global
strategy approach is often poor.
Furthermore, the frequent use of the global
strategy approach since the mid-1980s seems
to be the result of the wearing out of other
suitable, alternative or potential strategy
concepts. The use of the global strategy
concept appears to reflect a tendency by
scholars and by practitioners to use
generally attractive and popular concepts or
jargon. Shearlock (1993) states that British
Airways had to pull together the disparate
threads of its global strategy, which seems to
be quite a common feature in many of the
cited references. This signifies that the use of
the term global strategy does not usually
reflect a genuine or true global strategy
approach. However, it is possible that a
company’s global strategy approach may be
to adapt the corporate strategy of each
market to local conditions, characteristics,
and circumstances. Such global strategy does
not accomplish the requisites of a genuine or
true global strategy approach. It signifies
also a misleading, misuse and abuse of the
term global strategy. For example, Salmon
and Tordjman (1989) distinguish between a
multinational strategy and a global strategy
in terms of the internationalization of
retailing. They state that the multinational
strategy involves the implantation of
autonomous affiliates operating comparably
to the parent company, but adapted to the
local market. Global strategy corresponds to
a reproduction, outside the national frontiers
of the retailer, of a formula that is known to
be successful in the originating country. In
addition, in Kanter (1994) executives point
out that there is a significant difference
between simply having offices in several
countries and developing a genuine or true
global strategy.
Most cited references handle the term
global strategy differently to the way it is
defined in well-recognized American-English
and British-English dictionaries, such as
Random House Webster’s Unabridged
Dictionary and the Oxford English
Dictionary. Just of few of the cited references
apply the global strategy approach according
[ 14 ]
to these dictionaries. The global strategy is,
in one way or another, locally adapted to
national, regional or continental
characteristics. In order to clarify the core
meaning of the global strategy approach
some definitions are provided. They are
collected from two widespread and
acknowledged American-English and
British-English dictionaries. For example,
the term ``global’’, according to Random
House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1997,
p. 812) signifies:
. . . pertaining to the whole word, worldwide
and universal . . .
Likewise, in The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary on Historical Principals (1993,
p. 1101) ``global’’ means:
. . . pertaining to or embracing the whole of a
group of items et cetera; comprehensive and
total; and pertaining to the whole world,
worldwide . . .
The term ``strategy’’, according to Random
House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1997,
p. 1880) signifies:
. . . a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or
stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or
result . . .
In The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary on Historical Principals (1993,
p. 3085) ``strategy’’ means:
. . . The art or skill of careful planning
towards an advantage or a desired end . . . In
game theory, business theory, etc., a plan for
successful action based on the rationality and
interdependence of the moves of opposing or
competing participants . . .
The term strategy does not implicate any
assumed mislead, misuse or abuse in the
cited references of the present research, but
the focus is on the global strategy approach
as a whole, which signifies, according to the
author of the present article, a strategy
pertaining to the whole world, applied
worldwide, and implemented universally.
Consequently, the author argues that a few
of the cited references properly apply to the
global strategy approach. In addition, there is
a tendency to mislead, misuse and abuse the
term. Two different words, namely
``international’’ or ``multinational’’, seem to
be more appropriate in terms of describing
the usage and the application of the global
strategy approach in many of the cited
references. The term ``international’’
signifies, according to Random House
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1997, p. 996):
. . . between or among nations: involving two
or more nations; of or pertaining to two or
more nations or their citizens; pertaining to
the relations between nations; having
members or activities in several countries;
GoÈran Svensson transcending national boundaries or
``Glocalization’’ of business viewpoints . . . .
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’
approach In The New Shorter Oxford English
Management Decision Dictionary on Historical Principals (1993,
39/1 [2001] 6±18
p. 1397) the word ``international’’ means:
. . . agreed on by many nations; used by, or
able to be used by many nations . . .
In Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1997,
p. 1263) ``multinational’’ refers to:
. . . large corporation with operations and
subsidiaries in several countries; of,
pertaining to, or involving several nations;
noting or pertaining to multinationals . . .
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
on Historical Principals (1993, p. 1856) defines
the term ``multinational’’ as:
Comprising or pertaining to several or many
nationalities or ethnic groups, etc.; Of a
company or other organization: operating in
several or many countries . . .
Accordingly, most of the cited references are
proposed to be in accordance with
traditionally international, multinational or
other adaptable strategy approaches.
A glocal strategy approach and
glocalization of business activities
The introduction of the terms ``glocal
strategy’’ and ``glocalization’’ may be a
compromise to improve the present usage of
the term global strategy. The glocal strategy
approach reflects the aspirations of a global
strategy approach, while the necessity for
local adaptations and tailoring of business
activities is simultaneously acknowledged.
The ``glocal strategy’’ concept comprises
local, international, multinational, and
global strategy approaches (see Figure 1). It
differs from the global strategy approach,
since it explicitly recognizes the importance
of local adaptations and tailoring in the
marketplace of business activities. In
addition, it comprises typically international
and multinational strategy issues.
Figure 1
The concept of ``glocal strategy’’
Accordingly, a local strategy approach
recognizes the necessity to consider locally
related issues in the performance of business
activities in the marketplace. An
international strategy approach refers to the
local strategy approach of business activities
that is in part applicable beyond the home
market’s boundaries, while a multinational
strategy approach is applied when a wide
selection of foreign markets is targeted
through the business activities. The
international and multinational strategy
approaches acknowledge also the necessity
for local adaptations of business activities in
the different markets targeted. The global
strategy approach has an emphasis on the
standardization and homogenization of
business activities across existing markets
all over the world. However, the global
strategy approach to manage worldwide
business activities appears to be a
managerial utopia. Therefore, the concept of
glocal strategy is introduced to provide an
improved accuracy of the present usage of
the global strategy approach among scholars
and practitioners. The glocal strategy
approach also recognizes that there has to be
a balance and harmony between the
standardization versus the adaptation, and
the homogenization versus the tailoring, of
business activities. The harmony is achieved
since the concept explicitly comprises the
spectrum from local strategy issues to global
strategy issues through the ``glocalization’’ of
business activities. Glocalization means that
the standardization versus the adaptation,
and the homogenization versus the tailoring,
of companies’ business activities are
optimized. Accordingly, the focus on balance
and harmony are crucial in a company’s
glocal strategy approach and its glocalization
of business activities.
Final remarks
The issues of globalization of business
activities and global strategies emerged in
the 1980s and have been a popular topic since
then. They have been used and applied
among executives in international and
multinational corporations, as well as among
scholars in the field of international
business. There is a continuum from the local
adaptations of worldwide strategies on one
side, and the universal or global strategies
without adaptations on the other side. In an
empirical context, the global strategy
approach is more like a managerial utopia,
though any kind of genuine or true global
strategy will not be successfully implemented
on a worldwide basis. A worldwide strategy
[ 15 ]
GoÈran Svensson has at least to be adapted to local conditions,
``Glocalization’’ of business characteristics, and circumstances to a
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ certain extent. Nevertheless, it is a matter of
approach
thinking globally, but acting locally, i.e.
Management Decision
39/1 [2001] 6±18 acting and thinking ``glocally’’. Apparently,
in most areas it is not suitable to apply a
genuine or true global strategy, since local
adaptations of the business activities usually
have to be taken into consideration in the
marketplace.
Accordingly, the author argues that the
misusage of the global strategy approach
amongst scholars and practitioners is
widespread. For some practitioners, and
some scholars as well, this may be perceived
as a matter of semantics. Nevertheless, in the
academic field of research and its pertinent
publications, the existence of well-defined
concepts and the correct usage and
application of concepts and approaches are of
crucial importance. Scholars need a unifying
conceptual framework that bears basically
the same underlying core meaning. Without
it, they will not be able to communicate
effectively with each other. Research may be
positioned wrongly and may mislead the
audience or the potential readers.
The lack of universality and worldwide
application of the global strategy approach is
argued to be evident among scholars and
practitioners. The usage and the applications
focus on the international and multinational
contexts. In one way or another, all assume
that the global strategy approach has in part
to be adapted to local conditions,
characteristics, and circumstances.
Therefore, the use of the global strategy
approach is misleading, misused and
sometimes abused. The usage of the concept
is also multi-contextual. The usage of the
term global strategy is confusing and not
appropriate, or as the CEO of the Coca-Cola
Company concludes (Daft, 2000, p. 20):
. . . we must remember we do not do business
in markets; we do business in societies . . . In
our future, we’ll succeed because we will also
understand and appeal to local differences.
The 21st century demands nothing less . . .
Conclusions
The topic of the present article has provided
a discussion on the importance of well-
defined concepts and approaches used by
scholars and by practitioners. It is
troublesome when the usage of a concept or
an approach is ambiguous and confusing.
The present discussion focused on, and was
exemplified through, the globalization of
business activities and the use of the global
strategy approach. Accordingly, the point of
departure was the term ``global strategy’’. In
[ 16 ]
literature, the use of the global strategy
approach that does not refer to the
universality or the worldwide applicability of
business activities is widespread. The use of
the global strategy approach indicates that it
is misleading, misused and abused multi-
contextually in the field of international
business. Usually, it is assumed that the
global strategy approach has to be adapted to
local conditions, characteristics, and
circumstances. The global strategy approach
is often nothing more than a question of
international or multinational strategy
approaches. Therefore, the contribution and
relevance of the term global strategy is
questioned. The use of the global strategy
approach is argued to be confusing and not
appropriate in most contexts. It is implicitly
argued that the terms international strategy
or multinational strategy provide a better
description of what is often referred to as a
global strategy. A compromise is proposed to
be the term ``glocal strategy’’, which in part
reflects the aspirations of a global strategy
approach, while the necessity for local
adaptations and tailoring of business
activities (i.e. ``glocalization’’) is
simultaneously acknowledged. The
widespread usage of popular jargon cannot
cover the fact that a genuine or true global
strategy approach appears to be a managerial
utopia. Accordingly, the terms ``glocal
strategy’’ and the ``glocalization’’ of business
activities are introduced to enhance the
accuracy of the present usage by scholars and
by practitioners of the term global strategy
and the phenomenon often described as the
globalization of business activities.
Note
1 This section is to a large extent based upon an
interview with the chairman and chief
executive of Coca-Cola Company, Douglas
Daft, in The Financial Times (27 March, 2000,
p. 20).
References
Allio, R.J. (1989), ``Formulating global strategy’’,
Planning Review, March/April, pp. 22-7.
Anand, J. and Delios, A. (1996), ``Competing
globally: how Japanese MNCs have matched
goals and strategies in India and China’’,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 31 No. 3, Fall,
pp. 50-62.
Anonymous (1988), ``How Coke markets to the
world’’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9
No. 5, September/October, pp. 4-7.
Anonymous (1994), ``Coca-Cola’s staffing
philosophy supports its global strategy’’,
Personnel Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, Fall.
Barlett, C.A. (1982), ``How multinational
organizations evolve’’, The Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 20-34.
GoÈran Svensson Bender, P.S. (1985), ``The challenge of
``Glocalization’’ of business international distribution’’, International
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
approach
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 20-5.
Management Decision Champy, J. (1997), ``Think globally, sell locally’’,
39/1 [2001] 6±18
Sales & Marketing Management, July,
pp. 24-5.
Daft, D. (2000), ``Back to classic Coke’’, The
Financial Times, 27 March, p. 20.
Dahringer, L.D. and Mu È hlbacher, H. (1991),
International Marketing: A Global
Perspective, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Reading, MA.
Domzal, T.J. and Unger, L.S. (1987), ``Emerging
positioning strategies in global marketing’’,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4,
Fall, pp. 23-40.
Ellwood, F.O., Larkins, E.R. and Winkle, G.M.
(1999), ``Issues in managing the multinational
corporation’’, CPA Journal, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 49-52.
Grune, G.V. (1989), ``Global marketing global
opportunities’’, Executive Speeches,
November, pp. 10-3.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985), ``Do you
really have a global strategy’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 4, July/August,
pp. 139-48.
Hammerly, H. (1992), ``Matching global strategies
with national responses’’, The Journal of
Business Strategy, March/April, pp. 8-12.
Henley, J.S. (1989), ``African employment
relationships and the future of trade unions’’,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 295-309.
Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982), ``How
global companies win out’’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 60 No. 5, September/October,
pp. 98-108.
Jeannet, J-P. and Hennessey, H.D. (1992), Global
Marketing Strategies, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA.
Johansson, J.K. (2000), Global Marketing: Foreign
Entry, Local Marketing & Global
Management, Irwin McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc., Boston, MA.
Kanter, R.M. (1994), Global Strategies: Insights
from the World’s Leading Thinkers, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kanter, R.M. and Dretler, T.D. (1998), ``Global
strategy and its impact on local operations:
lessons from Gilette Singapore’’, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 60-8.
Katrak, H. (1983), ``Multinational firms’ global
strategies, host country indigenisation of
ownership and welfare’’, Journal of
Development Economics, Vol. 13 No. 3,
December, pp. 331-48.
Keegan, W.J. (1989), Global Marketing
Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Keegan, W.J. and Green, M.S. (2000), Global
Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kenyon, A. and Mathur, S.S. (1987), ``The
development of strategies by international
commercial banks’’, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, Winter, pp. 56-73.
Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. (1993), ``Making
Global Strategies Work’’, Sloan Management
Review, Spring, pp. 11-27.
Koepfler, E.R. (1989), ``Strategic options for global
market players’’, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 46-50.
Kogut, B. (1985), ``Designing global strategies:
profiting from operational flexibility’’, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, Fall,
pp. 27-38.
Kotler, P. (1986), ``Global standardization courting
danger’’, The Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring, pp. 13-6.
Lamont, D. (1996), Global Marketing, Blackwell
Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Levitt, T. (1983), ``The globalization of markets’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, May/
June, pp. 92-102.
Lewis, K. and Housden, M. (1998), An Introduction
to International Marketing: A Guide to Going
Global, Kogan Page Limited, London.
Lindell, M. and Karagozoglu, N. (1997), ``Global
strategies of US and Scandinavian R&D-
intensive small- and medium-sized
companies’’, European Journal of
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 92-100.
Lorenz, C. (1986), The Design Dimension: Product
Strategy and the Challenge of Global
Marketing, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Malnight, T.W. (1996), ``The transition from
decentralized to network-based MNC
structures: an evolutionary perspective’’,
Journal of International Business Studies,
First Quarter, pp. 43-65.
McCarthy, D.J. and Puffer, S.M (1997), ``Strategic
investment flexibility for MNE success in
Russia: evolving beyond entry modes’’,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 32 No. 4,
Winter, pp. 293-319.
McCloughry, K. and James, E. (1957), Global
Strategy, Cape.
Orlando, C.R. (1997), ``Cross-national human
resource diversity as value added’’, The Mid-
Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 93-100.
Palich, L.E. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1999), ``A
theory of global strategy and firm efficiencies:
considering the effects of cultural diversity’’,
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 587-606.
Porter, M.E. (1986), ``The strategic role of
international marketing’’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring,
pp. 17-21.
Rabstejnek, G. (1989), ``Let’s go back to the basics
of global strategy’’, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 32-5.
Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, H. and
Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), ``The impact of national
culture and economic ideology on managerial
work values: a study of the United States,
[ 17 ]
GoÈran Svensson Russia, Japan, and China’’, Journal of
``Glocalization’’ of business International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1,
activities: a ``glocal strategy’’ First Quarter, pp. 177-207.
approach
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
Management Decision (1997), Random House, New York, NY.
39/1 [2001] 6±18
Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992), ``Implementing
global strategy: characteristics of global
subsidiary mandates’’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Fourth
Quarter, pp. 715-35.
Salmon, W.J. and Tordjman, A. (1989), ``The
internationalisation of retailing’’,
International Journal of Retailing, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 3-16.
Segal-Horn, S. (1996), ``The limits of a global
strategy’’, Strategy & Leadership, November/
December, pp. 12-17.
Shearlock, P. (1993), ``Cure, but not cure all, for
BA’’, Airfinance Journal, No. 151, June, pp. 35-7.
Sheth, J. (1986), ``Global markets or global
competition’’, The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring, pp. 9-11.
Simon-Miller, F. (1986), ``World marketing: going
global or acting local? Five expert
viewpoints’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring, pp. 5-7.
Application questions
1 Explain in what sense the term ``glocal
strategy’’ may enhance the accuracy of
how the term global strategy is currently
used by practitioners, as well as by
scholars.
[ 18 ]
Sugiura, H. (1990), ``How Honda localizes its
global strategy’’, Sloan Management Review,
Fall, pp. 77-82.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on
Historical Principles (1993), Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Wind, Y. (1986), ``The myth of globalization’’, The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2,
Spring, pp. 23-6.
Yip, G.S. (1989), ``Global strategy . . . In a world of
nations?’’, Sloan Management Review, Fall,
pp. 29-41.
Yip, G.S. (1992), Total Global Strategy: Managing
for Worldwide Competitive Advantage,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Yip, G.S. and Coundouriotis, G.A. (1991),
``Diagnosing global strategy potential: The
world chocolate confectionery industry’’,
Planning Review, January/February,
pp. 5-14.
Further reading
Geren, B. (1989), ``In pursuit of global strategies:
meeting worldwide competition’’, SAM
Advanced Management Journal, Summer,
pp. 44-8.
2 How can the model of the ``glocal strategy’’
concept be applied by practitioners and by
scholars in strategic management?
3 How can the term ``glocal’’ be applied in
fields other than strategic management?