Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Marketing ReviewEmerald Article: Country classification and the cultural dimension: a review and evaluationJohanna Vanderstraeten, Paul Matthyssens
Article information:
To cite this document: Johanna Vanderstraeten, Paul Matthyssens, (2008),"Country classification and the cultural dimension: a review and evaluation", International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 Iss: 2 pp. 230 - 251
Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810866308
Downloaded on: 10-05-2012
References: This document contains references to 75 other documents
To copy this document: [email protected]
This document has been downloaded 3129 times.
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Country classification and thecultural dimension: a review
and evaluationJohanna Vanderstraeten
Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Economics,University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, and
Paul MatthyssensDepartment of Management, Faculty of Applied Economics,
University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium andDepartment of Marketing Management, Erasmus University,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify, review and evaluate international marketing (IM)studies in the domain of cultural country classification (1985-2006).
Design/methodology/approach – First, articles in which an “original” classification is developedare identified. Then, the paper characteristics are summarized using Ronen and Shenkar’scharacteristics. Eventually, Hunt’s evaluation criteria are used to evaluate these classifications.
Findings – Summarizing and evaluating the selected papers reveals that the authors of the selectedpapers do not always seem to explicitly consider Ronen and Shenkar’s useful recommendationsconcerning questionnaire and sample characteristics. Moreover, evaluation seems to indicate thatHunt’s evaluation criteria are not always met.
Research limitations/implications – It is recommended that future cultural country classificationresearchers consider Ronen and Shenkar’s recommendations. Moreover, researchers might explicitlyspecify the concept of culture and/or incorporating other influencing factors. It is also recommendedthat researchers develop their own classification scheme to check whether the scheme meets Hunt’sevaluation criteria. Other researchers might try to contribute to a convergence of the cultural countryclassification domain by empirically testing newly developed typologies; refining studies; assigningother countries; and testing comparatively existing classifications.
Practical implications – Practitioners might think of grouping countries culturally for fine-tuningmarketing strategy. When seeking for co-ordination and synergy, multinationals can use countrycluster offices as a step-stone or alternative to more centralized, global headquarters.
Originality/value – Besides, Ronen and Shenkar’s paper in 1985 – another evaluation paper in thedomain of cultural country classification and IM was not discovered. The paper tries to offer someuseful recommendations to both scientific researchers and practitioners.
Keywords International marketing, National cultures, Culture, Classification, Market segmentation
Paper type Literature review
IntroductionFor international marketeers, segmenting the market is necessary in order to identify acompany’s target markets. Segmenting the market can be done in various ways, such asquality of life grouping (Peterson and Malhotra, 2000), regional country classification(Furnham et al., 1994; Lessem, 2001) or cultural country classification (Hofstede, 1980).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
IMR25,2
230
International Marketing ReviewVol. 25 No. 2, 2008pp. 230-251q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651330810866308
Although researchers do not agree on “the best way” of segmenting the market, wesupport the idea that segmentation based on cultural country similarities can bevaluable for both international marketing (IM) practitioners and researchers. For IMpractitioners and researchers, several questions can be raised while studying this topic,such as “What are the advantages of segmenting the world?” “Why using countries as alevel of analysis when doing so?” and “What is the usefulness of considering culturalsimilarities?” These questions will be addressed before explaining the purpose of thisresearch.
Segmenting the world based on cultural country similaritiesAccording to Kale and Sudharshan (1987), Kreutzer (1988), Papadopoulos and Denis(1988), and Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede (2002), the basis for IM and IM expansion issegmentation and country selection. Helsen et al. (1993) are convinced of the usefulnessof country-based segmentation in order to make entry and standardization decisions.The latter leads to enhanced efficiency (Kreutzer, 1988). According to Hofstede (1984),Ronen and Shenkar (1985), and Paik et al. (2000), the convergence theory can be appliedwithin a country cluster or segment, whereas the divergence theory should be adoptedbetween two clusters or segments. Within the same country cluster, this will result, forinstance, in similar types of relationships (Matthyssens and Wursten, 2003) or equalnew product promotions (Wills et al., 1991). Also other researchers are convinced of theusefulness of segmenting the world on the country level. Sriram and Gopalakrishna(1991) believe that by doing so, international marketeers can adopt similar advertisingcampaigns and uniform brand names in a country segment. Kale (1995) believes thatcultural clustering can be very useful when selecting an appropriate marketing mix.Depending on the cultural cluster, consumers will prefer, for instance, product noveltyand variety or product functionality.
Next, the question is raised which basis to adopt to do the clustering. Severalresearchers decided to use regional proximity (Furnham et al., 1994; Lessem, 2001).Hayes and Allinson (1988), however, warn for an over-simplification. They state thatcountries which have ecological or climatic similarities can have very different culturalvalues, beliefs or attitudes. Consequently, we believe that using countries as a level ofanalysis should not be equalled to segmenting the world based on regional similarities.Instead, we support the use of cultural differences or similarities as a basis for marketsegmentation while they are deemed to have a significant impact on marketing(Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Zandpour and Harich, 1996; Ellis, 2006).
Cultural differences, however, can be studied at various levels (Sivakumar andNakata, 2001). This makes one wonder whether using national boundaries as a proxyfor differentiating between cultures is an over-simplification of the “real world” or not.Within-country differences are deemed less significant than between-countrydifferences (Hofstede, 1991; Smith and Schwartz, 1997). Although differencesbetween subgroups cannot be ignored, several researchers decided to conductresearch on cultural differences on the level of national culture[1] (Dorfman et al., 1997;Jones and Davis, 2000; Steenkamp, 2001; Cano et al., 2004; Yamazaki, 2005).
Purpose of this researchNational cultural proximity and similarity is widely used to cluster countries (Hofstede,1980; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). In their milestone paper, Ronen and Shenkar reviewed
Countryclassification
231
eight cluster studies. They discussed the studies’ sample characteristics, variables,questionnaire characteristics and followed procedure and analysis, which resulted inuseful remarks concerning the repeatability and applicability of these studies. Manyauthors used the Ronen and Shenkar clusters while examining cultural countrydifferences (Schneider and de Meyer, 1991; Brodbeck et al., 2000), which indicates thatthis study has a high-academic value[2]. Nevertheless, after 1985 several authors (Kale,1995; Hsieh, 2002) decided to develop their own cultural country classifications. We arecurious to know whether these authors took into consideration the useful remarks Ronenand Shenkar made concerning classification characteristics. We, therefore, provide anoverview and evaluation of the cultural country classification studies developed in theperiod 1985-2006 in the domain of IM. Such a literature review might help (re-)focusingthe field and might signal future research opportunities. (Re-)focusing the field ofcultural country classification studies in the domain of IM might be valuable because theIM domain has undergone several changes (Kotabe, 2003; Cateora and Graham, 2005).After 1985 no review or evaluation of the papers written in the domain of culturalcountry classifications[3] and IM has been undertaken. By providing an updatedliterature review and evaluation, we try to answer the following questions:
RQ1. Did the authors of “new” ( ¼ post 1985) cultural country classification studiesin the domain of IM take into consideration Ronen and Shenkar’s suggestions?
RQ2. What is the usefulness of these classifications for the IM researcher andpractitioner?
RQ3. Why did these authors decide to develop their own classification schemeinstead of using earlier contributions such as the Ronen and Shenkarsynthesized clusters?
Before trying to answer these questions, we explain the importance of classification inscientific inquiry.
Classification and scientific inquiryFirst, the importance of classification schemes for scientific research is explained.Thereafter, the differences between typologies and taxonomies are examined. Toconclude, Hunt’s (2002) criteria to evaluate classification schemes are discussed.
Importance of classification for scientific inquiryContributors to the philosophy of science and researchers alike have stressed theimportance and advantages of classification systems. According to Everitt (1993), aclassification scheme has the advantage of organizing data. Consequently, data can beretrieved more efficiently, and a convenient summary can easily be provided.
The call for classification is deeply rooted in the philosophy of science and marketingscience. Marketing research scholars Frank and Green (1971) argue that almost everymajor problem requires the classification of objects by several characteristics. Theyargue that classification is a major concern of science. Also other scholars are convincedof the importance of classifying the complex world (Hall, 1972; Carper and Snizek, 1980).
Hunt (2002), a marketing theory advocate, claims that classification frameworksplay a fundamental role in theory development because they are our primary means toorganize phenomena into classes or groups.
IMR25,2
232
Taxonomy vs typologyTwo procedures for generating configurations are widely distinguished: typologiesand taxonomies (Carper and Snizek, 1980; Hambrick, 1983; Miller and Friesen, 1984;Hunt, 2002).
When developing a typology, the researcher imposes a classificatory structure beforeanalyzing any specific set of data. Configurations or types are conceptually determinant,not by any replicable empirical analysis. Hence, this procedure implies a lot of reasoningand a profound knowledge of the phenomenon. The resulting typologies tend to be neatand elegant. However, five distinct theoreticians might generate five distinct typologies.
Taxonomies are configurations or types which are developed empirically. Thescholar applies multivariate analysis to a set of objects or phenomena. He/she attemptsto find natural clusters in the data and these clusters are the basis for configurations.Two researchers starting with the same database and employing the same multivariatetechnique must yield the same classification. However, it also implies that taxonomiesare not as neat and elegant as typologies.
Evaluating classification schemesEach classification scheme should be evaluated in order to determine eachcontribution. Hunt (2002) developed evaluation criteria, which have been used byother scholars to develop classifications (Fern and Brown, 1984; Varadarajan, 1986).The following five criteria are proposed (pp. 229-36):
(1) Does the scheme adequately specify the phenomena to be classified? Hunt claimsthat the researchers should specify “exactly what is being categorized.” It shouldbe clear which universe is being classified. Is it consumers, countries, products,managers’ work values, or other?
(2) Does the scheme adequately specify the properties or characteristics that will bedoing the classifying? This implies that two different researchers should classifythe phenomena under investigation in the same group. Moreover, the questionwhether these properties are “the appropriate properties for classificatorypurposes” is implicitly included in this criterion.
(3) Does the scheme have categories that are mutually exclusive? In a soundtypological scheme, no item or phenomenon should be allowed to fit two distinctclasses at the same hierarchical level.
(4) Does the scheme have categories that are collectively exhaustive? That means,does every phenomenon of the universe have a “home”? Surely, the inclusion ofa category “others” may be a solution to this problem, but this will underminethe next point.
(5) Is the scheme useful? A taxonomy or typology is not to be generated for eleganceonly. It should serve a scientific or pedagogical purpose.
In the following section, the selected papers on country classification are evaluatedusing the above criteria.
Research studyIn this part, we address three subdivisions; “method,” “overview of cultural countryclassifications,” and “evaluation”.
Countryclassification
233
MethodWhile searching for published material via Web of Science and EbscoHost (BusinessSource Premier) on cultural country classifications with implications in the domain ofIM, articles were selected when they met the following requirements:
. papers should develop an “original” classification (typology or taxonomy);
. this taxonomy or typology should be based on country differences in culturalvalues or culture-based attitudinal dimensions;
. only papers in which more than one country attributed to each category areconsidered; and
. the taxonomy or typology should have implications in the domain of IM.
The following search terms were used: “country” or “culture” in combination with“cluster,” “type,” “taxonomy,” “typology,” “orientation,” “group,” “classification,”“profile,” “segmentation,” or “culture.” The wildcard symbol “ *” was utilized to broadenthe search. When the number of journal articles was too high, the search was limited tothe following subject terms: “business,” “management,” “economics,” and “marketing.”
The adopted selection path was as follows. First, peer-reviewed journals specializedin IM and international business (IB) were examined for the period 1985-2006[4]. Then,two publisher-independent article databases were checked: Web of Science (part of theISI web of knowledge database), and EbscoHost (Business Source Premier). Finally,after the articles from these selections were read, a number of articles were found onthe basis of the literature list of these articles.
Eventually, this paper selection resulted in eight studies on cultural countryclassification in the domain of IM[5], published in four journals[6] and one book.
Before evaluating the papers, we first summarize the paper characteristics, such asresponse rate and questionnaire translation. Because the Ronen and Shenkar (1985)paper has a high-academic value (see earlier), and there did not occur another literaturereview in the domain of cultural country classifications and IM after 1985, the Ronenand Shenkar characteristics are adopted while doing so.
After an overview of the examined papers is given, Hunt’s (2002) evaluation criteriaare used to evaluate these classifications. We each evaluate the papers independently,after which the individual evaluations will be discussed. Consequently, a consensuswill be reached. Some more information should be given about the method used toevaluate Hunt’s fifth criterion (Is the scheme useful). Deciding about the usefulness of aclassification scheme is rather subjective. We, therefore, try to look at more objectivesub-criteria like:
. the applicability of the classification; and
. the kind of citations the paper received.
The first sub-criterion will be evaluated using a summary of Hunt’s other evaluationcriteria. It seems logical to say that the applicability of a classification lowers when itdoes not meet one (or more) of Hunt’s other criteria. The second sub-criterion will beanalyzed using the Chubin-Moitra classification scheme as explained in Egghe andRousseau (1990). Chubin and Moitra developed a citation classification scheme, in whichcitations are first subdivided into affirmative citations and negative ones. Negativecitations can be partially negative (only a part of the paper received criticism) or totally
IMR25,2
234
negative (the paper as a whole received criticism). Affirmative citations are furthercategorized as either essential or supplementary. First, essential citations can be eitherbasic or subsidiary. They are basic if the findings of the reported research depend on thereferenced paper. They are subsidiary if the findings are not directly connected to thesubject of the paper. Second, supplementary citations can be additional or perfunctory.They are additional if the referenced paper provides some additional informationbesides the main idea of the reported paper. They are perfunctory if they are related tothe reported paper without providing some additional information.
Overview of cultural country classificationsThe selected papers are presented in the following tables. Table I, “Taxonomies usingHofstede’s or Hall’s cultural dimensions,” gives an overview of the taxonomies inwhich the authors used existing work – Hofstede’s or Hall’s cultural dimensions – toreflect “culture.” An extensive description of the work of Hofstede (1980) and Hall(1983) can be found in their work[7]. Therefore, for this category of taxonomies, only afew sample and questionnaire characteristics are described, such as the variables, andthe number of countries.
In Table II, “Typologies,” an overview of the deductive classification papers isgiven. Because the authors reasoned “from above” and did not conduct any empiricalresearch, characteristics such as the variables and sample characteristics are left away.
Table III, “Combination papers,” provides an overview of the work in which theauthors combined the development of a typology and an application of this logicalpartitioning or several taxonomies. When an original empirical research is conducted,all questionnaire and sample characteristics are used. When existing data is utilized,only the characteristics describing the “new” research are reported.
Basis and intent, terminology, and country groups. As can be read from Tables I-III,the most prominent topics are advertising and branding, and relationship marketing.Six studies have been published in the second decade of our research (1995-2006). Onlytwo studies were published between 1985 and 1994. Notable is the fact that from theeight papers reviewed, the authors of only two papers introduced a terminology fortheir country groups.
Studies are relatively inconsistent with regard to which countries are culturally similar.For instance, Denmark and The Netherlands are appointed to the same cluster in the workof Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991), while each of these countries belongs to a differentcountry cluster in the work of Zandpour and Harich (1996). Nevertheless, the authors ofboth papers developed country groups with a purpose of standardizing internationaladvertising campaigns in the countries belonging to the same cluster. Needless to say thatthis kind of contradictive results is confusing for both IM practitioners and researchers.
Questionnaire and sample characteristics. While comparing the questionnairecharacteristics, two features can give interesting information about the fundaments ofthe classification (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985): the quality of the questionnairetranslation and of the questionnaire distribution:
(1) Questionnaire translation. It was a back-translation used or was thequestionnaire distributed in English in non-English speaking countries? Thelatter is less reliable.
(2) Questionnaire distribution. Distribution on site or during a training program orevent abroad? The latter can be a source of error.
Countryclassification
235
Sri
ram
and
Gop
alak
rish
na
(199
1)K
ale
(199
5)Z
and
pou
ran
dH
aric
h(1
996)
Cu
ltu
ral
cou
ntr
ycl
assi
fica
tion
:b
asis
and
inte
nt
Iden
tify
ing
can
did
ate
cou
ntr
ies
bas
edon
econ
omic
ally
,cu
ltu
rall
y,
and
med
iaav
aila
bil
ity
sim
ilar
ity
for
stan
dar
diz
edin
tern
atio
nal
adv
erti
sin
gca
mp
aig
ns
Dev
elop
ing
mar
ket
ing
mix
esfo
rcl
ust
ers
ofeu
ro-c
onsu
mer
s.C
lust
erin
gis
bas
edon
Hof
sted
e’s
cult
ura
ld
imen
sion
s(P
DI,
UA
I,ID
V,
MA
S)
Th
ink
and
feel
pos
itio
nin
gm
ap:
inte
rnat
ion
alad
ver
tisi
ng
stan
dar
diz
atio
n
Ter
min
olog
yN
osp
ecifi
cte
rmin
olog
yN
osp
ecifi
cte
rmin
olog
yN
osp
ecifi
cte
rmin
olog
yC
oun
try
gro
up
sA
R,
BR
,M
X,
YU
AU
,CA
,HK
,IE
,NZ
,PE
,ZA
,SG
,UK
,U
SA
,V
EA
T,
BE
,C
L,
CO
,F
R,
DE
WE
ST
,G
R,
IL,
IT,
PT
,E
S,
CH
,T
W,
TR
DK
,F
I,N
L,
NO
,S
EIN
,IR
,P
K,
PH
,T
HJP
AT
,D
E,
CH
,IT
,U
K,
IEB
E,
FR
,G
R,
PT
,E
S,
TR
DK
,S
E,
FI,
NL
,N
O
BE
,N
L,
IT,
AU
AT
,C
A,
DE
,K
Pþ
KR
,U
SA
DK
,F
R,
HK
,JP
,E
S,
SE
,T
W,
UK
AR
,B
R,
IN
Qu
esti
onn
aire
?N
o,u
seof
exis
tin
gm
acro
-var
iab
les
and
Hof
sted
e’s
resu
lts
No,
use
ofH
ofst
ede’
sre
sult
sN
o,H
ofst
ede’
san
dH
all’s
resu
lts,
and
con
ten
tan
aly
sis
(1,9
14co
mm
erci
als)
Var
iab
les
9(m
acro
)ec
onom
ic,
4cu
ltu
ral
(Hof
sted
e:P
DI,
UA
I,ID
V,
MA
S),
and
7(m
acro
)m
edia
avai
lab
ilit
y/u
sag
ev
aria
ble
s
4cu
ltu
ral
dim
ensi
ons
(Hof
sted
e:P
DI,
UA
I,ID
V,
MA
S)
Em
otio
nal
and
rati
onal
adv
erti
sin
gap
pea
ls,
adv
erti
sin
gin
form
atio
nA
dv
erti
sin
gin
du
stry
env
iron
men
tC
ult
ure
:H
ofst
ede
(PD
I,U
AI,
IDV
)an
dH
all
(tim
e)N
um
ber
ofco
un
trie
s40
17T
elev
isio
nco
mm
erci
als:
8T
hin
kan
dfe
elp
osit
ion
ing
map
:23
Cla
ssifi
cati
on:
pro
ced
ure
and
anal
ysi
sH
iera
rch
ical
clu
ster
anal
ysi
san
dd
iscr
imin
ant
anal
ysi
sS
AS
cen
troi
dh
iera
rch
ical
clu
ster
ing
pro
ced
ure
and
non
-hie
rarc
hic
alS
AS
pro
ced
ure
Pos
itio
nin
gm
ap
Note:
Cou
ntr
yab
bre
via
tion
ssh
own
inth
eA
pp
end
ix
Table I.Taxonomies usingHofstede’s or Hall’scultural dimensions
IMR25,2
236
Wil
lset
al.
(199
1)S
chu
ster
and
Cop
elan
d(1
999)
Mat
thy
ssen
san
dW
urs
ten
(200
3)
Cu
ltu
ral
cou
ntr
ycl
assi
fica
tion
:b
asis
and
inte
nt
Inte
rrel
atio
nsh
ipb
etw
een
con
tex
t(h
igh
vs
low
)an
dp
rod
uct
dif
fusi
on–
how
mu
ltin
atio
nal
corp
orat
ion
ssh
ould
enh
ance
the
des
ign
and
mar
ket
ing
ofg
lob
alp
rod
uct
s
Cu
ltu
recl
assi
fica
tion
mod
elb
ased
onti
me,
task
and
rela
tion
ship
,ap
pli
edto
the
glo
bal
sale
san
dn
egot
iati
onm
odel
–p
rep
arin
gfo
rb
usi
nes
sex
chan
ge
wit
hso
meo
ne
from
anot
her
cult
ure
Imp
act
ofcu
ltu
re(H
ofst
ede’
scu
ltu
ral
dim
ensi
ons:
PD
I,U
AI,
IND
,M
AS
)on
rela
tion
ship
mar
ket
ing
Ter
min
olog
yN
osp
ecifi
cte
rmin
olog
yN
osp
ecifi
cte
rmin
olog
yC
onte
st,
net
wor
k,
fam
ily
,p
yra
mid
,so
lar
syst
em,
wel
l-oi
led
mac
hin
eC
oun
try
gro
up
sA
sian
NIC
san
dJP
Th
ird
Wor
ldS
can
din
avia
nco
un
trie
s,U
SA
,C
AT
rad
itio
nal
cou
ntr
ies
ofth
efi
rst
wor
ld,
such
asth
eU
K
Nor
thA
mer
ica
and
Nor
th-w
este
rnan
dC
entr
alE
uro
pe:
not
furt
her
spec
ified
(n.f
.s.)
Med
iter
ran
ean
Eu
rop
e:F
R(e
xcl
ud
ing
Par
is),
ES
,P
T,
IT,
GR
Lat
inA
mer
ica:
n.f
.s.
Tra
dit
ion
alcu
ltu
res:
JP,C
N,c
entr
ally
pla
nn
edec
onom
ies,
form
erly
cen
tral
lyp
lan
ned
econ
omie
s,an
dd
evel
opin
gco
un
trie
s:n
.f.s
.T
he
Mid
dle
Eas
t:n
.f.s
.
Con
test
:A
U,
CA
,U
K,
IE,
NZ
,U
SA
Net
wor
k:
DK
,N
L,
NO
,S
EF
amil
y:
CN
,H
K,
ID,
IN,
MY
,P
H,
SG
Py
ram
id:
BR
,C
L,
CO
,E
C,
SV
,G
R,
GT
,IT
(Sou
th),
KR
,MX
,PE
,PT
,RU
,T
W,
TH
,T
R,
UY
,V
ES
olar
Sy
stem
:BE
,FR
,IT
(Nor
th),
ES
,C
H(F
RE
NC
H)
Wel
l-oi
led
Mac
hin
e:A
T,
CZ
,F
I,H
U,
DE
,C
H(G
erm
an)
Note:
Cou
ntr
yab
bre
via
tion
ssh
own
inth
eA
pp
end
ix
Table II.Typologies
Countryclassification
237
Raw
was
(200
1)H
sieh
(200
2)
Com
bin
atio
n?
Cu
ltu
ral
typ
olog
y(H
ofst
ede)
and
app
lica
tion
(eth
ical
bel
iefs
)B
ran
dim
age
tax
onom
yan
dcu
ltu
ral
tax
onom
y(H
ofst
ede)
Cu
ltu
ral
cou
ntr
ycl
assi
fica
tion
:b
asis
and
inte
nt
Com
par
ison
ofa
cult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
bas
edon
Hof
sted
e’s
dim
ensi
ons
(PD
I,U
AI,
IND
,M
AS
)an
dco
nsu
mer
s’et
hic
alb
elie
fs
Nat
ion
clu
ster
sb
ased
onb
ran
dim
age
scor
esan
dn
atio
ncl
ust
ers
bas
edon
nat
ion
alch
arac
teri
stic
s(¼
trad
ing
blo
cs,
lev
elof
econ
omic
dev
elop
men
t,cu
ltu
ral
dim
ensi
ons
(PD
I,U
AI,
IDV
))ar
eco
mp
ared
Ter
min
olog
yC
ult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
:fu
nct
ion
alis
ts,
def
eren
ts,
surv
ivor
s,en
thu
sias
t,co
nse
rvat
ion
ists
,ac
hie
ver
s,si
tuat
ion
ists
,ab
solu
tist
s,ea
syg
oers
,fo
llow
ers,
dip
lom
ats,
lead
ers
No
spec
ific
term
inol
ogy
Cou
ntr
yg
rou
ps
Fu
nct
ion
alis
ts:
IE,
US
A,
AU
Sit
uat
ion
ists
:A
TD
efer
ents
:E
G,
LB
Ab
solu
tist
s:E
G,
LB
Su
rviv
ors:
AT
Eas
yg
oers
:n
one
En
thu
sias
ts:
HK
,ID
Fol
low
ers:
ID,
EG
,L
BC
onse
rvat
ion
ists
:ID
Dip
lom
ats:
non
eA
chie
ver
s:IE
,U
SA
,A
U,
HK
Lea
der
s:A
U,
US
A,
IE,
AT
Cu
ltu
ral
tax
onom
y(H
ofst
ede)
:B
E,
FR
,JP
,E
S,
AU
,C
A,
UK
,N
L,
US
A,
DE
,IT
BR
,M
X,
TR
,K
R,
TW
,T
HB
ran
dim
age
tax
onom
y:
Cou
ntr
ies
are
clu
ster
edse
par
atel
yfo
rea
chb
ran
d(V
olk
swag
en,
For
d,
Ch
rysl
er,
Peu
geo
t,T
oyot
a,an
dF
iat)
Oth
ern
atio
ncl
ust
ers
(tra
din
gb
locs
,ec
onom
icd
evel
opm
ent)
are
not
furt
her
dis
cuss
ed
Qu
esti
onn
aire
?C
ult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
:u
seof
Hof
sted
e’s
resu
lts
Ap
pli
cati
on(e
thic
alb
elie
fs):
orig
inal
dat
ag
ath
erin
gC
ult
ura
lta
xon
omy
:u
seof
Hof
sted
e’s
resu
lts
Bra
nd
imag
eta
xon
omy
:u
seof
par
t(4
,320
car
own
ers)
ofd
ata
set
MO
RP
AC
ER
esp
onse
rate
Mal
lin
terc
ept
met
hod
þsh
opp
ing
mal
lcu
stom
ers
Ex
isti
ng
dat
aQ
ues
t.tr
ansl
atio
nN
o,E
ng
lish
Ex
isti
ng
dat
aQ
ues
t.d
istr
ibu
tion
Con
sum
ers
inm
ajor
shop
pin
gce
ntr
esE
xis
tin
gd
ata
Var
iab
les
Bel
iefs
con
cern
ing
eth
ical
imp
lica
tion
s(c
onsu
mer
situ
atio
ns)
,et
hic
alid
eolo
gy
,M
ach
iav
elli
anis
m,
cult
ura
ld
imen
sion
s(H
ofst
ede)
Cu
ltu
ral
tax
onom
y:
3cu
ltu
ral
dim
ensi
ons
(PD
I,ID
V,
UA
I)B
ran
dim
age
tax
onom
y:
bra
nd
imag
ev
aria
ble
sS
amp
lev
olu
mea
1,63
6re
spon
den
ts;
8;12
0E
xis
tin
gd
ata;
20;
exis
tin
gd
ata
(continued
)
Table III.Combination papers
IMR25,2
238
Raw
was
(200
1)H
sieh
(200
2)
Dem
ogra
ph
icin
form
atio
nA
ge:
mos
t:b
etw
een
20an
d49
yea
rsol
dG
end
erE
du
cati
on:
var
iou
sM
arit
alst
atu
s
Ex
isti
ng
dat
a
Org
aniz
atio
nle
vel
/fu
nct
ion
Pro
fess
ion
als,
man
ager
san
dem
plo
yee
s.N
otfu
rth
ersp
ecifi
edE
xis
tin
gd
ata
Con
tin
uat
ion
ofsa
mp
lep
rofi
leb
Non
eof
thes
ech
arac
teri
stic
sar
ere
por
ted
Ex
isti
ng
dat
aC
lass
ifica
tion
:p
roce
du
rean
dan
aly
sis
Cu
ltu
ral
typ
olog
y:
adop
ted
from
Hof
sted
e(p
osit
ion
ing
map
s:P
DI
and
UA
I;U
AI
and
MA
S;
PD
Ian
dIN
D)
Ap
pli
cati
on(e
thic
alb
elie
fs):
mu
ltip
led
iscr
imin
ant
anal
ysi
s
Cu
ltu
ral
tax
onom
y:
clu
ster
anal
ysi
sB
ran
dim
age
tax
onom
y:
hie
rarc
hic
alcl
ust
eran
aly
sis
Notes:
aS
amp
lesi
ze;
nu
mb
erof
cou
ntr
ies;
min
imu
msa
mp
lesi
zeof
each
cou
ntr
y,
bor
gan
izat
ion
size
;h
ead
qu
arte
rslo
cati
on;
ind
ust
ry;
orig
inof
resp
ond
ents
;co
un
try
abb
rev
iati
ons
show
nin
the
Ap
pen
dix
Table III.
Countryclassification
239
Ronen and Shenkar also emphasized that while gathering original data for a “culture”study, it is important to provide information concerning both the sample profile (i.e.explicitly mentioning the response rate, demographic information, organizational levelor function, organization size, origin of respondents, headquarters location andindustry type) and sample volume (sample size, minimum sample size of each country,number of countries)[8]. Depending on the sample characteristics, the results of a studycan only be applicable to a particular group or might have larger validity. Sirota andGreenwood (1971), for instance, emphasized that the results for participants of differentorganizational levels should not be compared or combined.
From the eight papers reviewed, only Rawwas (2001) conducted an empiricalresearch using original data gathering. The other authors decided to use existingdatabases. Consequently, we only provide some remarks concerning Rawwas’questionnaire and sample characteristics. For instance, although he did distribute hisquestionnaire in countries with another mother tongue than English (e.g. Austria,Egypt and Lebanon), they were distributed in English. Moreover, he did not report anyinformation concerning the origin of respondents. This characteristic, however, isimportant for all original data gathering in the cultural research domain. Then, heexecuted his research in eight countries. Needless to say that the more countries areinvolved, all the more the results are easily applicable.
EvaluationAs can be read from Table IV, not all papers met Hunt’s (2002) evaluation criteria. Theredoes not seem to be a problem concerning criterion one (Does the scheme adequatelyspecify the phenomena to be classified?). IM researchers and practitioners have a goodidea of which phenomena (in this case, countries) have been classified. This seems toindicate that marketing managers can confidently use the described studies whilemaking location decisions for “regional” centres (such as “regional” headquarters withthe intent of developing products or targeting advertising campaigns towards a clusterof countries with “cultural affinity” (Usunier, 2000)). Moreover, IM researchers canprobably use these studies when selecting representative countries for comparativecultural research. Several researchers (Ter Hofstede et al., 2002), though, do not agree onusing countries as a level of analysis. They argue that some countries should probablybe subdivided into two or more cultural regions (e.g. Belgium).
When evaluating criterion two (Does the scheme adequately specify the properties orcharacteristics that will be doing the classifying?) it becomes clear that not all authorsseem to base their classifications on objective classification criteria. In such cases, thisimplies that if another scholar would classify the countries examined, other countrygroups might emerge. We look at two sub-criteria while evaluating whether thediscriminating properties or characteristics are adequately specified. First, we checkwhether the country characteristic dimensions are described in detail. Is the content ofeach dimension clear for the reader? We also check whether these dimensions have somenumerical value. In other words, we want to know whether the authors used some clearlydefined and measurable country characteristic dimensions. Second, we verify whetherthe authors used a clearly defined cut-off rate to allocate a country to a particular countrygroup. While evaluating the studies on these sub-criteria, it becomes clear that allauthors describe their dimensions in detail. However, not all authors use numerical datato “measure” these dimensions. For instance, studies using the Hofstede scores fulfil this
IMR25,2
240
Doe
sth
esc
hem
ead
equ
atel
ysp
ecif
yth
ep
rop
erti
esor
char
acte
rist
ics
that
wil
lb
ed
oin
gth
ecl
assi
fyin
g?
Isth
esc
hem
eu
sefu
l?D
oes
the
sch
eme
adeq
uat
ely
spec
ify
the
ph
enom
ena
tob
ecl
assi
fied
?D
imen
sion
s?C
ut-
off
rate
?
Doe
sth
esc
hem
eh
ave
cate
gor
ies
that
are
mu
tual
lyex
clu
siv
e?
Doe
sth
esc
hem
eh
ave
cate
gor
ies
that
are
coll
ecti
vel
yex
hau
stiv
e?A
pp
lica
ble
?
On
lyaf
firm
ativ
eci
tati
ons?
Taxonom
iesusingHofstede’sor
Halls
culturaldim
ensions
Sri
ram
and
Gop
alak
rish
na
(199
1)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
Yes
Yes
Kal
e(1
995)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No,
IT¼
outl
ier
(sh
ould
be
intw
ocl
ust
ers:
nor
than
dso
uth
IT)
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
^(I
taly
)Y
es
Zan
dp
our
and
Har
ich
(199
6)Y
esY
esN
oY
esN
o(A
U,
MX
,N
Z,
NO
un
clea
r)^
(Not
all
cou
ntr
ies
are
allo
cate
d)
Yes
Typologies
Wil
lset
al.
(199
1)Y
es^ (N
um
eric
alv
alu
e?)
No
Yes
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
^(T
rad
itio
nal
reg
ion
s)Y
es
Sch
ust
eran
dC
opel
and
(199
9)Y
es^ (N
um
eric
alv
alu
e?)
No
Yes
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
^(T
rad
itio
nal
reg
ion
s)Y
es
Mat
thy
ssen
san
dW
urs
ten
(200
3)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
Yes
Yes
Com
bination
papers
Raw
was
(200
1)Y
esC
ult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
:y
esC
ult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
:n
oC
ult
ura
lty
pol
ogy
:n
o(c
oun
trie
sin
two
orm
ore
gro
up
s)
Yes
,if
only
the
cou
ntr
ies
exam
ined
are
con
sid
ered
^(N
ocl
ear
allo
cati
onof
cou
ntr
ies)
Yes
Hsi
eh(2
002)
Yes
Bra
nd
imag
eta
xon
omy
:y
esC
ult
ura
lta
xon
omy
:y
es
Bra
nd
imag
eta
xon
omy
:y
esC
ult
ura
lta
xon
omy
:y
es
Yes
Bra
nd
imag
eta
xon
omy
:n
o(n
otal
lco
un
trie
sar
eal
loca
ted
toea
ch“b
ran
d-g
rou
p”)
Cu
ltu
ral
tax
onom
y:
no
(not
all
cou
ntr
ies
are
allo
cate
d)
^(N
otal
lco
un
trie
sar
eal
loca
ted
)
Yes
Table IV.Evaluation criteria
Countryclassification
241
sub-criterion, while studies using Hall’s (non-quantified) cultural dimensions do not. Theauthors of several studies do not define explicitly the cut-off rates used (Zandpour andHarich, 1996; Matthyssens and Wursten, 2003). This seems to indicate that the allocationto clusters is rather subjective. The fact that not all studies meet criterion two hasimplications for both IM practitioners and researchers. A classification scheme that theywant to use might not (yet) have been tested empirically. Especially, typologies, withtheir conceptual (top-down) character, are less robust. However, they have beendeveloped by researchers with a profound knowledge of the research domain.Consequently, one can assume that the typologies are not “randomly” developed.Eventually, though, their managerial value might be higher than their academic rigor.
Criterion three (Does the scheme have categories that are mutually exclusive?) triesto check whether a country is only found in one classification group. Six out of eightpapers seem to meet this criterion. However, in the work of Rawwas (2001), severalcountries can be found in two or more classification segments. Also papers in which acountry is ambiguously allocated to a country segment do not meet criterion three (seeKale (1995), who states that Italy (an outlier) should probably be subdivided into northand south Italy). The fact that some countries are not clearly allocated to one clustergroup implies that IM researchers and practitioners can probably not rely on theresults for this specific country. We want to make a distinction between classificationschemes in which almost all countries are found in two or more classification segments(Rawwas, 2001) and studies in which only one country is not clearly allocated (Kale,1995). We believe that the latter is probably more robust than the first.
Six out of eight papers meet criterion four (Does the scheme have categories that arecollectively exhaustive?), which deals with the question whether each phenomenon hasa “home.” Hsieh (2002) does not allocate all 20 countries examined to her cultural andbrand image taxonomy, and therefore does not meet this criterion. In the work ofZandpour and Harich (1996), four countries are not allocated to cluster segments. It canbe frustrating for IM practitioners and researchers seeking for information about thecultural affinity of a country if it is not allocated.
Criterion five (Is the scheme useful?) deals with the question whether the schemeserves a scientific or pedagogical purpose. This criterion has – as explained earlier –been evaluated by looking at:
. the applicability of the classification; and
. the kind of citations the paper received.
When examining the applicability of the classification, it becomes clear that someauthors chose to examine country regions, such as Schuster and Copeland (1999), whoallocate regions (e.g. “Latin America”) besides countries. Traditional clusterhomogeneity has, however, been tested by various authors such as Paik et al. (2000),Lenartowicz and Johnson (2002), and Tixier (1994). The work of these authors indicatesthat countries of the same traditional cluster do not necessarily have the samecharacteristics. Also studies in which a country is not clearly allocated to a clustersegment, or in which not all countries considered are allocated, do not fully meetcriterion five. Thereby, scientific and practical usefulness is limited.
While analyzing the citations of the reviewed papers with the Chubin-Moitraclassification scheme (Egghe and Rousseau, 1990), we only look at the citations inwhich authors explicitly refer to the classification scheme. We do not consider citations
IMR25,2
242
in which other parts from the reported papers are cited. A literature search seems toindicate that all citations are affirmative. When looking at each citation separately, wenotice that most citations can be categorized as “perfunctory.” Only few seem to be“basic.” The results of Schuster and Copeland’s (1999) study are, for instance, used toformulate hypotheses (Gould et al., 2000) and to underpin a theory (Kumar et al., 2005).The work of Rawwas (2001) has also been used to formulate a hypothesis (Rawwaset al., 2005; Zgheib, 2005). The same can be said about the work of Zandpour andHarich (1996). Toffoli and Laroche (2002) and Lepkowska-White et al. (2003) useZandpour and Harich’s (1996) results to underpin their research hypotheses. Kale’s(1995) study has been used to explain results (van Everdingen et al., 2000) or formulatehypotheses (Hsieh et al., 2004). The fact that these papers receive affirmative citationsindicates that their work is useful for both researchers and practitioners.
DiscussionPrevious research in the cultural domain in general and specifically in culturalclassifications has received some criticism (Ronen and Kraut, 1977; Bhagat andMcQuaid, 1982; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). We use these criticisms to evaluate whetherprogress has been made in this field.
Ronen and Kraut warned in 1977 that few authors examining country clusters usequantitative data. In the eight cluster studies reviewed by Ronen and Shenkar (1985)some empirical data is used. The question can be raised whether “current” (post 1985)classifications are developed based on an empirical research study. When looking atthe eight studies discussed in this paper, the authors of six studies use some kind ofquantitative data (newly developed or existing databases). This seems to indicatethat – when looking at the studies discussed in this paper – this research domainappears to be slightly more “robust” than 30 years ago.
Bhagat and McQuaid (1982, p. 675) raised their concern about the fact that manyresearchers use “culture as an unspecified independent structure”. It therefore seemsnecessary to:
. specify the concept of culture; and
. incorporate other influencing factors than culture.
Concerning the first aspect, we would recommend researchers to use amultidimensional conception of culture and not restrict themselves tofour-dimensional (Hofstede, 1980) or two-dimensional models (Hall, 1976, 1983). AlsoKale (1995) remarks that Hofstede’s results should probably not be applied withoutsearching for other possible cultural dimensions. Unfortunately, in the eight papersreviewed, many authors (Sriram and Gopalakrishna, 1991; Kale, 1995) adopt Hofstede’scultural dimensions to conceptualize culture without searching for other culturaldimensions. Regarding the second aspect, we notice that many authors tend to usecultural country differences or similarities to “explain” the differences or similaritiesconcerning marketing practices such as relationship marketing or advertising.Although we tend to agree on the fact that cultural differences or similarities cannot beignored, we do believe that – besides culture – other factors (e.g. economic, politicaland legal) might influence the effectiveness of marketing practices (Wills et al., 1991;Sriram and Gopalakrishna, 1991; Zandpour and Harich, 1996; Ralston et al., 2001;Rawwas, 2001; Hsieh, 2002).
Countryclassification
243
When developing new cultural country classifications, it seems obvious thatresearchers try to utilize recommendations made by other authors (Bhagat andMcQuaid, 1982). Ronen and Kraut (1977) and Ronen and Shenkar (1985) emphasize theimportance of a clearly defined sample profile and volume. However, as discussedearlier, few authors of the reviewed studies seem to follow this useful remark.Specifically, in the area of the translation of questionnaires, recommendations byBhagat and McQuaid (1982) and Ronen and Shenkar (1985) have not been followed.
Some points of interest for researchers who want to develop an “original”classification scheme are derived from Table IV (see earlier). First, researchers canprobably increase the reliability and applicability of their classification scheme byexplicitly describing (cultural) country characteristics. By doing so, researchers seemto avoid representing them as a “black box.” Moreover, other scholars and practitionerscan probably better understand why a particular country is attributed to a certaincategory if researchers using numerical values representing dimensions clearlydescribe the cut-off rate. In addition, other (not yet categorized) countries can probablybe categorized more easily. Second, scholars have to allocate each country to acategory, and to only one category (mutual exclusivity). Moreover, if a country appearsto be an outlier, researchers can possibly consider subdividing this country into two ormore cultural regions, or at least reflect on its position, rather than merely excluding itfrom their “neat” classification. By doing so, the classification scheme can be more“robust,” which presumably increases the applicability of the classification.
We argue that the era of divergence in the domain of cultural country classificationhas passed, and that there exists an urge for convergence. So far, IM researchers do notseem to build on existing research results. Eventually this has resulted in aproliferation of “competing” classification schemes. Often, researchers start “fromscratch,” building their own typology or taxonomy instead of refining the existingclassification schemes. Consequently, future IM researchers could try to refine earlierresults, such as Schuster and Copeland’s (1999) broad cultural country groupings.
When adopting existing classifications in research, such as studies testing theeffectiveness of IM strategies or marketing mix elements in different countries orcountry groups, researchers should make their choice of cultural classifications moreexplicit. So far, researchers do not seem to make a conscious selection of the existingclassifications, nor do they seem to use multiple classifications to test the robustness oftheir research. Studies such as Jackofsky et al. (1988) and Townsend et al. (1990) do notprovide any explanation for their choice of classification.
Regarding practitioners, this study argues that IM managers might think ofgrouping countries culturally for fine-tuning their marketing strategy. When seekingco-ordination and synergies, multinationals might use country cluster offices as astep-stone or alternative to more centralized, global headquarters and “regional”offices. Depending on the topic and goal, we recommend marketing managers to tryout different classification schemes for different purposes. Country clusters based onwork goals can be more suitable for establishing organizational and HR approaches forsubsidiaries or alliances abroad, whereas other cultural classification schemes areprobably more useful for the differentiation of relational marketing and advertisingstrategies. We also recommend IM managers to continuously question their owncountry groupings. Following up on new country classification studies (either testingor comparing existing schemes or developing an alternative classification) might lead
IMR25,2
244
to a re-allocation of some countries and a re-thinking of marketing mix approachestowards a country or a group of countries.
Conclusion and future researchWe try to answer our three research questions (see earlier), incorporatingrecommendations for future research. Firstly, while describing the researchcharacteristics of the eight selected papers, it became clear that not all empiricalstudies take into account Ronen and Shenkar’s (1985) useful remarks concerningquestionnaire and sample characteristics. Although future cultural countryclassification researchers might first want to evaluate whether all recommendationsare useful for the research they are planning to execute, they should at least considerthem explicitly. By doing so, they can probably improve the reliability and validity oftheir research, which in turn can considerably advance the IM research domain. We alsorecommend future researchers to specify the concept of culture and/or incorporate otherinfluencing factors than culture (see the “discussion” section for further explanation).
Secondly, we have discussed the fact that some of the selected papers do not meetHunt’s (2002) evaluation criteria. Consequently, both IM researchers and practitionershave to take into account that the classifications’ usefulness can be rather low. Ingeneral, we believe that researchers could use Hunt’s evaluation criteria as follows:first, they might explicitly check whether the classification scheme they havedeveloped or refined meets these criteria. By doing so, they can probably increase thereliability and repeatability of the classification scheme (see also the “discussion”section for a summary of some points of interest). Second, researchers might use our“ratings” of the selected papers to know which aspects of the existing classificationscan be refined. Some future research directions contributing to a convergence of thecultural country classification research domain are:
. To empirically test newly developed typologies. By doing so, these classificationschemes can probably become more robust, which in turns can advance thecultural country classification research domain.
. To refine studies in which countries are ambiguously allocated to two or morecountry clusters. Moreover, geographic areas such as “Latin-America” could besubdivided into two or more country groups.
. To assign other countries to the classification schemes in which only a fewcountries are examined. That way, the classification scheme could be enriched.Currently, IM researchers and practitioners need to be “lucky” that the countriesthey are interested in are examined in the selected papers.
. To test comparatively existing typologies and taxonomies in order to evaluatetheir robustness. So far, classification schemes seem to exist “independently”from another.
To answer our third research question, we believe that researchers develop their ownclassification schemes instead of using the Ronen and Shenkar (1985) synthesized clustersbecause in each domain, cultural influences can differ. We believe that cultural influencesare different when searching for “best” HR practices as compared to “best” IM decisions.Even within a particular domain, different country clusters can probably emerge whenexamining different aspects. Cultural country groups used to develop advertising
Countryclassification
245
campaigns might be dissimilar from relationship marketing cultural country groups. We,therefore, would urge for the development and testing of different cultural classificationschemes along different marketing intents (e.g. advertising, relationship marketing). Wealso believe that the existing classification schemes could – as explained in the previousparagraphs – be refined by future researchers. By doing so, future researchers cancontribute to a convergence in the domain of cultural country classifications.
Notes
1. That national culture has been examined during various decades, proofs the extensiveamount of articles which emerges in databases such as EbscoHost Business Source Premieror Web of Science. For example, when searching for “nation * cultur *” in the Web of Sciencedatabase (Social Science Citation Index), 452 articles in the subject categories business,management and economics are found (July 18, 2007).
2. The Ronen and Shenkar (1985) study has been cited by several researchers. On July 18, 2007,this paper had been cited 230 times in the Social Science Citation Index of the Web of Science.This database indexes more than 1,725 journals across 50 social sciences disciplines, and itindexes individually selected, relevant items from over 3,300 of the world’s leading scientificand technical journals. Most of the citations occurred in the management (56.09 percent) andbusiness (55.23 percent) disciplines (remark: some of the papers could be classified in two ormore disciplines).
3. There did occur other review studies in the international market segmentation domain, suchas a study from Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede (2002), who reviewed the international marketsegmentation literature. They did not, however, specify their research to the culturaldimension.
4. The following peer-reviewed journals were selected and checked for the period 1985-2006: inthe domain of IM: Advances in International Marketing, International Journal of Advertising,International Journal of Market Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing,International Marketing Review, Journal of International Marketing, and The InternationalReview of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research; in the domain of IB: InternationalBusiness Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, International Studies ofManagement and Organization, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal ofInternational Management, Journal of World Business, and Management InternationalReview. For some journals, the reviewed period had to be limited to the electronicallyavailable data. Advances in International Marketing was electronically available for theperiod 2000-2006; International Journal of Management Reviews for the period 1999-2006;The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research for the period1990-2006; Journal of International Marketing for the period 1993-2006; InternationalBusiness Review for the period 1993-2006; and Journal of International Management for theperiod 1998-2006.
5. We first executed our literature search considering the same requirements as listed under“Method,” but without restricting ourselves to the marketing domain. We found 19 papershaving implications in the domain of IM or IB. These were: Rosenstein (1985), Evans et al.(1989), Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991), Wills et al. (1991), Altman (1992), Quelch (1992),Kale (1995), Myers et al. (1995), Smith et al. (1996), Zandpour and Harich (1996), Trompenaarsand Hampden-Turner (1997), Schuster and Copeland (1999), Hsieh (2002), Ralston et al.(2001), Rawwas (2001), Gupta et al. (2002), Hofstede et al. (2002), Drost et al. (2002) andMatthyssens and Wursten (2003). When only considering papers with implications in thedomain of IM, eight papers remained: Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991), Wills et al. (1991),Kale (1995), Zandpour and Harich (1996), Schuster and Copeland (1999), Hsieh (2002),Rawwas (2001) and Matthyssens and Wursten (2003).
IMR25,2
246
6. Although we did found papers in both IB and IM journals during our first literature search,articles specialized in the IM domain were only found in IM journals.
7. The work of Hall (time) can be found in Hall (1983).
8. Ronen and Shenkar (1985) summed up several sample characteristics which should bediscussed while conducting a “culture” study. We however want to emphasize that –depending on the overall goal of the study – some of these characteristics seem to be lessimportant than others. When conducting a “culture” study in B2B, it seems important toprovide information concerning for instance function. Research about consumers does notrequire this kind of information.
References
Altman, Y. (1992), “Towards a cultural typology of European work values and workorganization”, Innovation in Social Sciences Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-44.
Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982), “Role of subjective culture in organizations: a review anddirections for future research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 653-85.
Brodbeck, F.C. et al., (2000), “Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 Europeancountries”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Cano, C.R., Carrillat, F.A. and Jaramillo, F. (2004), “A meta-analysis of the relationship betweenmarket orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 179-200.
Carper, W.B. and Snizek, W.E. (1980), “The nature and types of organizational taxonomies: anoverview”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Cateora, P.R. and Graham, J.L. (2005), International Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U. and Bautista, A. (1997), “Leadership inwestern and Asian countries: commonalities and differences in effective leadershipprocesses across cultures”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 233-74.
Drost, E.A., Frayne, C.A., Lowe, K.B. and Geringer, J.M. (2002), “Benchmarking training anddevelopment practices: a multi-country comparative analysis”, Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
Egghe, L. and Rousseau, R. (1990), Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library,Documentation and Information Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ellis, P.D. (2006), “Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis and cross-nationalcomparisons”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1089-107.
Evans, P., Lank, E. and Farquhar, A. (1989), “Managing human resources in the internationalfirm: lessons from practice”, in Evans, P., Doz, Y. and Laurent, A. (Eds), Human ResourceManagement in International Firms: Change, Globalization, Innovation, Macmillan PressLtd, Basingstoke, pp. 113-43.
Everitt, B.S. (1993), Cluster Analysis, Arnold, London.
Fern, E.F. and Brown, J.R. (1984), “The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy: a case ofinsufficient justification”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 68-77.
Frank, R.E. and Green, P.E. (1971), “Numerical taxonomy in marketing analysis: a reviewarticle”, in Aaker, D.A. (Ed.), Multivariate Analysis in Marketing: Analysis and Application,Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp. 300-21.
Furnham, A., Kirkcaldy, B.D. and Lynn, R. (1994), “National attitudes to competitiveness: money,and work among young people: first, second, and third world differences”, HumanRelations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 119-32.
Countryclassification
247
Gould, S.J., Gupta, P.B. and Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000), “Product placements in movies: across-cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudes towardthis emerging, international promotional medium”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4,pp. 41-58.
Gupta, V., Hanges, P.J. and Dorfman, P. (2002), “Cultural clusters: methodology and findings”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 11-15.
Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hall, E.T. (1983), The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time, Anchor Books Doubleday,New York, NY.
Hall, R.H. (1972), Organizations: Structure and Process, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hambrick, D.C. (1983), “An empirical typology of mature industrial-product environments”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 213-30.
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1988), “Cultural differences in learning styles of managers”,Management International Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 75-80.
Helsen, K., Jedidi, K. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1993), “A new approach to country segmentationutilizing multinational diffusion patterns”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 60-71.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,Sage, London.
Hofstede, G. (1984), “Cultural dimensions in management and planning”, Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 81-94.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economicgrowth”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-21.
Hofstede, G., van Deusen, C.A., Mueller, C.B. and Charles, T.A. (2002), “What goals do businessleaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 785-803.
Hsieh, M-H. (2002), “Identifying brand image dimensionality and measuring the degree of brandglobalization: a cross-national study”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 46-67.
Hsieh, M-H., Pan, S-L. and Setiono, R. (2004), “Product-, corporate-, and country-imagedimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Hunt, S.D. (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing,M.E. Sharpe, Inc., New York, NY.
Jackofsky, E.F., Slocum, J.W. and McQuaid, S.J. (1988), “Cultural values and the CEO: alluringcompanions?”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Jones, G.K. and Davis, H.J. (2000), “National culture and innovation: implications for locatingglobal R&D operations”, Management International Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 11-39.
Kale, S.H. (1995), “Grouping euro-consumers: a culture-based clustering approach”, Journal ofInternational Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 8-48.
Kale, S.H. and Sudharshan, D. (1987), “A strategic approach to international segmentation”,International Marketing Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 60-70.
Kotabe, M. (2003), “State-of-the-art review of research international marketing management”,in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, pp. 3-41.
IMR25,2
248
Kreutzer, R.T. (1988), “Marketing-mix standardization: an integrated approach in globalmarketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 19-30.
Kumar, R., Rangan, U.S. and Rufın, C. (2005), “Negotiating complexity and legitimacy inindependent power project development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 3,pp. 302-20.
Lenartowicz, T. and Johnson, J.P. (2002), “Comparing managerial values in twelve LatinAmerican countries: an exploratory study”, Management International Review, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 279-307.
Lepkowska-White, E., Brashear, T. and Weinberger, M.G. (2003), “A test of ad appealeffectiveness in Poland and the United States”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 3,pp. 57-67.
Lessem, R. (2001), “Managing in four worlds: culture, strategy and transformation”, Long RangePlanning, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Matthyssens, P. and Wursten, H. (2003), “Internal marketing”, in Rugimbana, R. andNwankwo, S. (Eds), Cross-cultural Marketing, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 243-56.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984), Organizations: A Quantum View, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.
Myers, A., Kakabadse, A., McMahon, T. and Spony, G. (1995), “Top management styles inEurope: implications for business and cross-national teams”, European Business Journal,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Paik, Y., Vance, C.M. and Stage, H.D. (2000), “A test of assumed cluster homogeneity forperformance appraisal management in four Southeast Asian countries”, InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-50.
Papadopoulos, N. and Denis, J-E. (1988), “Inventory, taxonomy and assessment of methods forinternational market selection”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 38-51.
Peterson, M. and Malhotra, N. (2000), “Country segmentation based on objective quality-of-lifemeasures”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Quelch, J.A. (1992), “The new country managers”, McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 155-65.
Ralston, D.A., Vollmer, G.R., Srinvasan, N., Nicholson, J.D., Tang, M. and Wan, P. (2001),“Strategies of upward influence: a study of six cultures from Europe, Asia, and America”,Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 728-35.
Rawwas, M.Y.A. (2001), “Culture, personality and morality: a typology of internationalconsumers’ ethical beliefs”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 188-209.
Rawwas, M.Y.A., Swaidan, Z. and Oyman, M. (2005), “Consumer ethics: a cross-cultural study ofthe ethical beliefs of Turkish and American consumers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 57No. 2, pp. 183-95.
Ronen, S. and Kraut, A.I. (1977), “Similarities among countries based on employee work valuesand attitudes”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review andsynthesis”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54.
Rosenstein, E. (1985), “Cooperativeness and advancement of managers: an internationalperspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Schneider, S.C. and de Meyer, A. (1991), “Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: theimpact of national culture”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-20.
Schuster, C.P. and Copeland, M.J. (1999), “Global business exchange – similarities and differencesaround the world”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 63-80.
Countryclassification
249
Sirota, D. and Greenwood, J.M. (1971), “Understand your overseas work force”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (2001), “The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: avoiding thesample design pit in cross-cultural research”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 555-74.
Smith, P.B. and Schwartz, S.H. (1997), “Values”, in Berry, J.W., Segal, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C.(Eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Social Behavior and Applications, 2nd ed.,Vol. 3, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 77-118.
Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996), “National culture and the values oforganizational employees”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 231-64.
Sriram, V. and Gopalakrishna, P. (1991), “Can advertising be standardized among similarcountries? A cluster-based analysis”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 137-49.
Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (2001), “The role of national culture in international marketing research”,International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Ter Hofstede, F. (2002), “International market segmentation: issues andperspectives”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 185-213.
Ter Hofstede, F., Wedel, M. and Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (2002), “Identifying spatial segments ininternational markets”, Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 160-77.
Tixier, M. (1994), “Management and communication styles in Europe: can they be compared andmatched?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 8-26.
Toffoli, R. and Laroche, M. (2002), “Cultural and language effects on Chinese bilinguals’ andCanadians’ responses to advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 505-24.
Townsend, A.M., Scott, K.D. and Markham, S.E. (1990), “An examination of country andculture-based differences in compensation practices”, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 667-78.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: UnderstandingCultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Usunier, J.C. (2000), Marketing across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
van Everdingen, Y., van Hillegersberg, J. and Waarts, E. (2000), “ERP adoption by Europeanmidsize companies”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 27-31.
Varadarajan, P. (1986), “Horizontal cooperative sales promotion: a framework for classificationand additional perspectives”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 61-73.
Wills, J., Samli, A.C. and Jacobs, L. (1991), “Developing global products and marketing strategies:a construct and a research agenda”, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Yamazaki, Y. (2005), “Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: a theoretical andempirical comparison”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 29 No. 5,pp. 521-48.
Zandpour, F. and Harich, K.R. (1996), “Think and feel country clusters: a new approach tointernational advertising standardization”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15No. 4, pp. 325-44.
Zgheib, P.W. (2005), “Managerial ethics: an empirical study of business students in the AmericanUniversity of Beirut”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 69-78.
IMR25,2
250
Appendix. Country abbreviations
Corresponding authorJohanna Vanderstraeten can be contacted at: [email protected]
AL Albania HK Hong Kong PH PhilippinesAR Argentina HU Hungary PL PolandAU Australia IN India PT PortugalAT Austria ID Indonesia QA QatarBS Bahamas IR Iran RO RomaniaBE Belgium IE Ireland RU Russian FederationBO Bolivia IL Israel SG SingaporeBR Brazil IT Italy SK Slovak RepublicBG Bulgaria JM Jamaica SI SloveniaCA Canada JP Japan ZA South AfricaCL Chile KZ Kazakhstan ES SpainCN China KP Korea (North) SE SwedenCO Colombia KR Korea (South) CH SwitzerlandCR Costa Rica KW Kuwait TW TaiwanCZ Czech Republic LB Lebanon TH ThailandDK Denmark MY Malaysia TR TurkeyEC Ecuador MX Mexico UK United KingdomEG Egypt MA Morocco USA United States of AmericaSV El Salvador NA Namibia UY UruguayFI Finland NL The Netherlands VE VenezuelaFR France NZ New Zealand YU YugoslaviaGE Georgia NG Nigeria ZM ZambiaDE Germany NO Norway ZW ZimbabweGR Greece PK PakistanGT Guatemala PE Peru Table AI.
Countryclassification
251
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
