This paper examines the key factors that shape international market entry decisions, with emphasis on the balance between global integration and local responsiveness. Drawing on research by Gielens and Dekimpe, Hill, Hwang and Kim, and Davis, Desai and Francis, the paper analyzes how timing of entry, mode of entry, and institutional synergies influence firm performance abroad. Real-world examples — including Starbucks in Japan and China, European grocery chains in Eastern Europe, FedEx at Subic Bay, and the contrasting international strategies of Walmart and Target — illustrate how both internal firm characteristics and external market conditions drive strategic choices in global expansion.
The paper demonstrates effective use of applied theory: it introduces a theoretical claim from the literature, then immediately tests or illustrates it with a real-world case. This move — theory → case → critical qualification — is especially visible in the discussion of Gielens and Dekimpe's findings about Eastern European markets being applied (and thoughtfully limited) to the Starbucks case in Asia.
The paper opens with a thesis framing the integration-responsiveness tension, then moves through three analytical layers: (1) what research says about optimal entry timing and mode, (2) how strategic interconnectedness between country operations shapes entry choice, and (3) how risk and firm-level culture interact with external market conditions. Each section builds on the previous, culminating in a comparative conclusion that ties internal characteristics to external alignment.
Shenkar and Luo note that "international business strategy must aim to find the most effective balance between global integration and local responsiveness" when entering new markets. Thus, firms need to balance all of the different factors that go into the market entry decision in order to enjoy the best outcomes. Among the key issues are timing of entry and mode of entry.
There has been considerable research with respect to the different options available to a firm. Gielens and Dekimpe (2001) note in their study that firms that enter a market early — first movers especially — via greenfield investment tend to have the best success. Which of these elements is most important, however, is subject to debate. When Starbucks entered Japan and China, it met the criteria of having a novel concept and first-mover advantage, but the company used local partners rather than avoiding them and acquired existing assets. Gielens and Dekimpe were studying firms entering Eastern European markets, however, which are less "foreign" than Asian ones, and this distinction matters when applying their findings more broadly.
Hill, Hwang, and Kim (1990) make the case that the ideal choice for the type of market entry is related to "the strategic relationship the firm envisages between operations in different countries." To use a couple of examples, Starbucks has a low degree of interconnectedness between operations in different countries, so the franchise model is perfectly reasonable. The grocery stores moving into Eastern Europe were seeking to capture economies of scale by integrating those operations with their Western European ones, so Gielens and Dekimpe rightly found that greenfield entry was the best approach.
Likewise, FedEx's move into Subic Bay was primarily to deliver Intel chips produced nearby either to Chinese assemblers or to North America. When Intel closed its operations there, FedEx had no reason to keep the operation running. Thus, the way FedEx envisioned the business was central to both its market entry and exit strategies. The strategic logic underpinning a firm's international operations, then, is a critical determinant of which entry mode will prove most effective.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.