“Glocalization”_of

`̀ Glocalization'' of business activities: a `̀ glocalstrategy'' approach

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

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

themselves and their research in relation to

other scholars' research. Concepts and

approaches may also be used to limit the

scope of a specific research project.

Practitioners may use different concepts and

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.

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

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

[ 6 ]

Management Decision39/1 [2001] 6±18

# MCB University Press[ISSN 0025-1747]

KeywordsInternational business,

Globalization, Multinationals,

Strategy

AbstractThe 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

on, and is exemplified through, the

globalization of business activities

and the term `̀ global strategy''.

The widespread use of popular

jargon cannot cover the fact that a

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.

allocations of resources to achieve

established business goals. Yip (1989)

provides a detailed framework for evaluating

whether and how to globalize an individual

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 bymaximizing local competitive advantage,revenues, or profits; a global strategy seeks tomaximize worldwide performance throughsharing 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 MuÈ hlbacher (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`̀ Glocalization'' of businessactivities: a `̀ glocal strategy''approach


regional units. Kim and Mauborgne (1993)

present five characteristics that are assumed

to make a global strategy work, namely head

office's familiarity with local conditions, two-

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

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

[ 8 ]



access to market drivers such as common

customer needs, global customers, global

channels, transferable marketing, and

leading markets. In addition companies are

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, andmanagement . . .

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 MuÈ hlbacher (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 ]



emphasize adaptations of the global strategy

approach and its related business activities.

Accordingly, the global strategy approach

and the globalization of business activities

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

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

[ 10 ]



advantages of global organizations. In

developing a global strategy, other economic

factors and business considerations that are

important include the combined effects on

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 ]



Champy (1997) states that companies must

value cultural and ethnic diversity, because

it is a pragmatic necessity for any company

that wants to sell globally. He concludes: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

only certainties are that globalization hasbecome fashionable, and that it represents adaunting new challenge of indefinableproportions . . . (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 theneed to maintain a careful balance betweenlocal subsidiary responsiveness and thecoordination 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

[ 12 ]



lessons may be learnt, namely the need for

integration across functions and divisions,

the need to manage change, the need to

respect local cultures, and the need to

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 ]



global strategy in one way or another.

However, its usage and applications are often

disparate, unclear and doubtful. A few of

these have been briefly presented. The global

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

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


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;

[ 14 ]



transcending national boundaries or

viewpoints . . . .

In The New Shorter Oxford English


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 andglocalization 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.

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

Figure 1The concept of `̀ glocal strategy''

[ 15 ]



has at least to be adapted to local conditions,

characteristics, and circumstances to a

certain extent. Nevertheless, it is a matter of

thinking globally, but acting locally, i.e.

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 . . . Inour future, we'll succeed because we will alsounderstand 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

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.

Note1 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).

ReferencesAllio, 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.

[ 16 ]



Bender, P.S. (1985), `̀ The challenge of

international distribution'', International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 20-5.

Champy, J. (1997), `̀ Think globally, sell locally'',

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 MuÈ 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 ]



Russia, Japan, and China'', Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1,

First Quarter, pp. 177-207.

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

(1997), Random House, New York, NY.

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.

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 readingGeren, B. (1989), `̀ In pursuit of global strategies:

meeting worldwide competition'', SAM

Advanced Management Journal, Summer,

pp. 44-8.

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.

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?

[ 18 ]



Documents

“Glocalization”_of