The Mode Of Entry A Company Chooses To Enter International M

The Mode Of Entry A Company Chooses To Enter International Markets Dep

The mode of entry a company chooses to enter international markets depends on a variety of factors including the nature of the company’s strategic objectives. Select a well-known company that competes in the international markets. What was the company’s mode of entry? What was the entry designed to achieve? Finally identify two advantages and two disadvantages to the entry mode chosen by the company.

Paper For Above instruction

The globalization of markets has prompted numerous companies to seek international expansion to capitalize on new opportunities, diversify risks, and enhance competitive advantage. One prominent example is Starbucks Corporation, an international coffeehouse chain renowned for its widespread global presence and strategic market entry modes. Starbucks' approach to entering international markets exemplifies a combination of strategies tailored to local contexts while leveraging its global brand strength. The company primarily utilized joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries as modes of entry, depending on the target country's regulatory environment, cultural considerations, and market dynamics (Thompson, 2022).

Starbucks entered the international marketplace through a combination of direct investments and strategic alliances. For instance, in China, the company initially adopted a joint venture with local partners to mitigate market entry risks, understand local consumer preferences, and navigate regulatory barriers (Li & Zhang, 2007). Over time, Starbucks transitioned to wholly owned subsidiaries in some regions, reflecting its confidence in establishing direct control over its brand and operations. This mode of entry was designed to achieve multiple strategic objectives: establishing brand dominance, adapting product offerings to local tastes, and maintaining consistent quality standards across markets.

The choice of entry mode—mainly joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries—provided numerous advantages. Firstly, it allowed Starbucks to gain valuable local market insights through collaborations with local partners, thereby reducing cultural and operational uncertainties (Thompson, 2022). Secondly, establishing wholly owned subsidiaries permitted the company to maintain full control over its branding, customer experience, and operational policies, ensuring consistency with its global standards.

However, this approach also presented certain disadvantages. A primary challenge was the high cost associated with establishing wholly owned subsidiaries, including substantial capital investment and the need for local market knowledge (Caves, 2007). Additionally, in some countries, regulatory restrictions and complex bureaucratic barriers complicated entry through joint ventures, potentially leading to slower expansion and increased risk of cultural clashes or conflicts of interest (Li & Zhang, 2007).

Furthermore, employing joint ventures can entail sharing proprietary knowledge with local partners, which risks potential leakage of competitive advantages (Thompson, 2022). Conversely, wholly owned subsidiaries demand significant financial and managerial commitment, which can strain resources, especially when entering multiple markets simultaneously. Despite these challenges, Starbucks' strategic mode of entry has been highly effective in establishing and expanding its global footprint, balancing control and local responsiveness.

In summary, Starbucks’ international market entry mode—primarily a mix of joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries—was driven by strategic objectives such as brand control, customization to local tastes, and risk management. While offering advantages like local insights and control, it also carried disadvantages associated with high costs and regulatory hurdles. The company’s experience underscores the importance of aligning entry modes with strategic goals and contextual factors, as highlighted in Thompson’s (2022) discussion on modes of entry in international markets.

References

• Caves, R. E. (2007). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge University Press.
• Li, H., & Zhang, J. (2007). The impact of market entry mode and local responsiveness on the performance of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 514-530.
• Thompson, A. A. (2022). Crafting and executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage. McGraw-Hill Education.
• United States International Trade Commission. (2017). Country profile: China. Retrieved from https://www.usitc.gov
• Yip, G. S. (2003). Total global strategy: Managing outside & inside activities. Oxford University Press.
• Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.
• Ricks, D. (2017). Global strategy. Routledge.
• Mezias, J. M., & Helfat, C. E. (2005). Innovation in geographically dispersed firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 253-273.
• Prasad, S., & Sharma, S. (2003). International market entry strategies. Business Horizons, 46(4), 39-46.
• Gerard, C. (2018). Challenges and opportunities in cross-cultural management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 370–385.