You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 21 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping: AQA 7138 Unit 3.3.3 — Strategy (refer to the official AQA specification document for exact wording). Lesson 8 framed whether to internationalise (globalisation drivers and reversals); this lesson develops how — the market-entry-mode spectrum (exporting, licensing, franchising, joint venture, wholly-owned subsidiary, M&A), the Uppsala internationalisation model, the born-global startup pattern, the CAGE distance framework for market selection, and the management of internationally distributed operations (centralisation-vs-decentralisation, glocalisation, off-shoring vs re-shoring). The 9-mark Assess prompt on this lesson asks whether a hypothetical firm should enter a fast-growing emerging market via wholly-owned subsidiary or joint venture. Phase 2 depth here requires moving beyond the entry-mode taxonomy to engage the control-vs-risk-vs-local-knowledge trade-off that shapes the decision in specific market contexts.
Connects to:
Definition: Market-entry mode is the institutional arrangement through which a firm makes its products available to customers in a foreign market. Entry modes vary across four critical dimensions — capital commitment (low for exporting, high for greenfield FDI), control (low for licensing, high for wholly-owned subsidiary), risk exposure (low for licensing, high for FDI), and speed (fast for exporting, slow for greenfield FDI). The mode-choice decision is the operationalisation of the higher-order strategic decision to internationalise.
Three features make the entry-mode choice strategically loaded:
The standard entry-mode taxonomy spans six positions on the commitment-control-speed-risk spectrum:
| Mode | Risk | Capital | Control | Speed | IP exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exporting | Low | Low | Low | Fast | Low |
| Licensing | Low | Low | Low | Fast | High |
| Franchising | Low-Medium | Low-Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Joint venture | Medium | Medium-High | Shared | Medium | Medium |
| Strategic alliance | Low-Medium | Low-Medium | Shared | Fast | Medium |
| Wholly-owned FDI (greenfield) | High | High | High | Slow | Low |
| Wholly-owned FDI (acquisition) | High | High | High | Medium | Low |
Exporting is the simplest and lowest-risk entry mode. The firm produces goods domestically and sells them to customers in another country, either directly (selling directly to foreign customers) or indirectly (through agents, distributors, trading companies or export-management firms).
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Low investment and capital risk | Transport cost may make product uncompetitive |
| Uses existing domestic production capacity | Tariffs and trade barriers raise landed cost |
| Quick to implement | Limited control over marketing and distribution in foreign market |
| Tests market demand before committing further | Currency fluctuations affect realised margin |
Many UK craft producers (BrewDog, Innocent before its sale, Brompton bicycles) began international expansion through exporting before committing to overseas production. Exporting is the textbook Uppsala-model starting position — the firm builds market knowledge before escalating commitment.
Licensing involves the licensor granting a foreign licensee the right to use its intellectual property — patent, brand name, production process, design — in exchange for a fee or royalty. The licensee bears the production and marketing risk; the licensor captures royalty revenue without operational involvement.
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Low cost and risk for licensor | Limited control over quality and brand standards |
| Immediate access to licensee's local knowledge and distribution | Licensor captures only a fraction of potential revenue |
| Avoids tariffs and trade barriers (production is local) | Risk of creating future competitor — licensee gains knowledge |
| No need to invest in foreign operations | IP protection difficult in weak-enforcement jurisdictions |
Disney licenses its characters to toy, clothing and theme-park operators worldwide, generating royalty revenue without manufacturing the licensed products itself. Pharmaceutical licensing (large-pharma firms licensing biotech-discovered molecules for global commercialisation) is structurally similar.
International franchising extends the domestic franchise model — the franchisor grants the foreign franchisee the right to operate under its brand, systems and business model in exchange for franchise fees and royalties.
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Rapid international expansion with limited franchisor capital | Reduced control over quality and customer experience |
| Franchisees bear financial risk and provide local market knowledge | Cultural adaptation may be needed |
| Revenue from franchise fees and royalties | Franchisee disputes in foreign jurisdictions are complex |
| Motivated local operators with personal capital at stake | Brand damage if franchisees underperform |
Subway operates 30,000+ franchised restaurants in 100+ countries; McDonald's, KFC, Burger King and Domino's all operate predominantly franchised international models.
A joint venture (JV) involves the firm creating a new business entity with a foreign partner — both partners contribute capital, technology, market access or brand, share risk, share control and share returns.
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Access to partner's local knowledge, contacts and distribution | Profits shared |
| Shared financial risk | Potential strategic-direction conflict with partner |
| May be required by local law (historically China auto sector, India insurance) | Cultural differences between parent firms |
| Combines complementary strengths | Slow decision-making if partners disagree |
Many Western firms entered China historically through JVs because the regulatory framework required local partnership (now substantially relaxed). Tata Motors-Fiat in India combined Tata's manufacturing and distribution with Fiat's vehicle designs.
A strategic alliance is a cooperative agreement between firms that allows them to share resources, knowledge or capabilities without creating a new entity. Star Alliance (BA, Lufthansa, United and 20+ others) shares routes, lounges and frequent-flyer programmes; oneworld and SkyTeam operate similarly. Strategic alliances are common in pharmaceuticals (research collaborations), automotive (technology-sharing) and technology (platform integrations).
FDI involves establishing or acquiring business operations in the foreign country. Two sub-modes are distinguished:
| Sub-mode | Mechanism | Worked example |
|---|---|---|
| Greenfield investment | Building new operations from scratch | Nissan's Sunderland plant (UK greenfield investment, 1986); Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory |
| Acquisition | Buying an existing business in the foreign country | Tata Steel's acquisition of Corus (UK, 2007); Geely's acquisition of Volvo (2010) |
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Full control over operations, quality and strategy | Very high capital cost and financial risk |
| Direct access to local market | Exposure to political and economic instability |
| Avoids tariffs (production is local) | Long lead time to establish operations (greenfield) |
| Demonstrates commitment to local stakeholders | Difficult to exit if investment fails |
The Uppsala internationalisation model (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 onwards) describes the pattern by which many firms internationalise: starting with low-commitment entry modes in psychically close markets, accumulating market knowledge, then escalating commitment and entering psychically distant markets. The pattern is stepwise — firms move from exporting through to wholly-owned FDI as their market knowledge accumulates and their tolerance for international risk grows.
The model's strategic insight is that internationalisation is a capability-development process as well as a market-presence process. Firms cannot leap directly to wholly-owned FDI without first developing the international-management capability that lower-commitment modes build.
The model's principal limitation is that some firms — born-global startups — internationalise far faster than the Uppsala pattern predicts. Born-globals (Skype, Spotify in its early years, many digital-native consumer brands) are international from day one because their digital business model requires no physical presence in target markets and their addressable market is global by category definition.
Pankaj Ghemawat's CAGE framework analyses the distance between the firm's home market and a candidate target market across four dimensions:
| Dimension | What it measures | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Cultural | Language, religion, norms, values, ethnic homogeneity | Cultural-distance markets typically require more local adaptation |
| Administrative | Trade-bloc membership, currency union, colonial history, political relationship | Administrative-distance markets carry higher tariff and regulatory friction |
| Geographic | Physical distance, transport infrastructure, time-zone alignment | Geographic-distance markets carry higher logistics cost and coordination friction |
| Economic | GDP per capita, income distribution, factor-cost structure | Economic-distance markets may require different product positioning and pricing |
The framework's strategic value is that it forces explicit consideration of distance dimensions firms otherwise underweight. Many international expansions fail because cultural or administrative distance was treated as zero when the firm planned the entry.
flowchart TD
Trigger["Internationalisation decision:<br/>strategic intent to enter foreign market"] --> Selection["Market selection:<br/>CAGE distance analysis"]
Selection --> ModeChoice{"Entry-mode choice:<br/>risk-control-speed trade-off"}
ModeChoice --> LowCommit["Low commitment:<br/>exporting,<br/>licensing"]
ModeChoice --> MidCommit["Medium commitment:<br/>franchising,<br/>strategic alliance,<br/>joint venture"]
ModeChoice --> HighCommit["High commitment:<br/>wholly-owned greenfield FDI,<br/>wholly-owned acquisition"]
LowCommit --> Learn["Market-knowledge<br/>accumulation"]
MidCommit --> Learn
HighCommit --> Operate["Direct operation:<br/>cultural, regulatory, talent challenges"]
Learn --> Escalate{"Escalate commitment?"}
Escalate -->|Yes| HighCommit
Escalate -->|No| Continue["Continue at current mode"]
Operate --> Outcome["Strategic outcome:<br/>revenue, capability, position"]
Continue --> Outcome
style LowCommit fill:#15803d,color:#fff
style MidCommit fill:#1d4ed8,color:#fff
style HighCommit fill:#b91c1c,color:#fff
The diagram captures the iterative escalation pattern: many firms enter via low-commitment modes, accumulate market knowledge, then escalate to higher-commitment modes as confidence and capability build.
Off-shoring relocates business processes or production to a foreign country, typically to access lower labour costs, fewer regulations or natural-resource availability. Re-shoring (or near-shoring) returns operations to the home country (or a geographically proximate alternative).
| Off-shoring drivers | Re-shoring / near-shoring drivers |
|---|---|
| Lower labour cost (typical wage differential 60-80 % for skilled service work; even larger for low-skilled manufacturing) | Rising overseas wages (Chinese unit-cost inflation 2015-2025) |
| Access to specialist labour pools (India for IT, Philippines for BPO) | Quality concerns (defect rates, control challenges at distance) |
| 24/7 operations through time-zone arbitrage | Supply-chain resilience after COVID disruption |
| Proximity to raw materials | Automation reduces labour-cost arbitrage |
| Market access (production in target market) | Speed-to-market (domestic production responds faster to demand) |
| Tax incentives in host country | Consumer preference ("Made in Britain", ESG sourcing) |
| IP protection (domestic production reduces theft risk) |
The 2020s have seen substantial re-shoring and near-shoring activity. The strategic decision is now multi-dimensional rather than pure unit-cost-minimisation, as discussed in detail in lesson 8.
| Challenge | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Cultural variation | Management styles, communication norms and business practices vary across countries; Hofstede dimensions (power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, etc.) systematise the variation |
| Legal and regulatory compliance | Employment law, tax law, environmental regulation and corporate-governance requirements vary by jurisdiction |
| Currency management | Multi-currency revenue and cost exposure creates translation-and-transaction risk |
| Coordination across time zones | Managing teams across time zones requires sophisticated digital and process infrastructure |
| Talent management | Recruiting, developing and retaining international talent requires cross-cultural HR capability |
| Ethical consistency | Maintaining consistent ethical standards across countries with different regulatory norms — Carroll's CSR pyramid (Annex 8 #a11) framing applies |
A key strategic decision for multinationals is the degree to which decision-making is centralised at headquarters or decentralised to local management.
| Approach | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Centralised | Strategy, brand and quality consistency; economies of scale in purchasing and marketing | Slow response to local conditions; demotivated local managers; "one-size-fits-all" failures |
| Decentralised | Faster local responsiveness; empowered local managers; products tailored to local tastes | Strategy and brand-inconsistency risk; scale-economy loss; quality-and-cost control difficulty |
McDonald's exemplifies the glocalisation balance — core business model and brand standardised globally, menu adapted locally (McAloo Tikki in India, Teriyaki McBurger in Japan, McBaguette in France). The balance is dynamic and varies by function (operations more centralised, marketing more decentralised).
Linarra Healthcare is a hypothetical UK mid-market manufacturer of premium home-healthcare devices (blood-pressure monitors, glucose meters, sleep-apnoea devices), established 2007, currently turning over £58m a year with established presence in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands. The board is evaluating entry into the Indonesian market — a fast-growing emerging market with a population of 280m, a rapidly expanding middle class, GDP per capita growth averaging 5 %+ per year, and a home-healthcare market growing approximately 12 % per year. Indonesian healthcare distribution is dominated by 4-5 large national distributors, regulatory approval requires significant local liaison, and cultural and language adaptation for product instructions and customer service is substantial. The board is debating two entry modes. Option A: wholly-owned subsidiary — establish a Linarra Indonesia subsidiary with greenfield investment in Jakarta sales office, local marketing team, regulatory affairs capability and direct distributor relationships; estimated capital commitment £6m; expected 4-5 year payback; full control over brand, pricing and customer experience; full exposure to currency, regulatory and operational risk. Option B: joint venture with PT Sehat Nusantara — establish a 50:50 JV with a mid-market Indonesian medical-devices distributor with 18 years of market experience, established distributor and hospital relationships, regulatory-affairs capability and 35 staff; estimated capital commitment £2m; expected 3-4 year payback; shared control over strategy and operations; lower currency and operational-risk exposure but profit-sharing reduces unit returns.
Figures and company are fabricated for illustrative purposes; not affiliated with any actual business.
Assess whether Linarra Healthcare should enter the Indonesian market via wholly-owned subsidiary (Option A) or joint venture (Option B). (9 marks)
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 21 lessons in this course.