2782.B關(guān)于零售業(yè)營(yíng)業(yè)環(huán)境對(duì)銷售的影響 外文參考文獻(xiàn)譯文及原文doc

1、girod, stephane j.g. rugman, alan m. source: long range planning, v 38, n 4, august, 2005, p 335-357本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文參考文獻(xiàn)譯文及原文 學(xué) 院 經(jīng)濟(jì)管理學(xué)院 專 業(yè) 工商管理 年級(jí)班別 學(xué) 號(hào) 學(xué)生姓名 指導(dǎo)教師 2007年 6月 15 日目 錄1 區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)與跨國(guó)零售業(yè)11.1摘要.11.2緒論.11.3旗艦戰(zhàn)略.21.4樣本選擇.41.5數(shù)據(jù)的收集和分析.51.6案例.52 regional business networks and the multinational retai

2、l sector.82.1 abstract.82.2 introduction.102.3 the flagship strategy.112.4 sample selection.152.5 data gathering and analysis.162.6 the three cases.17 區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)與跨國(guó)零售業(yè)摘 要本文研究的是一套大型跨國(guó)零售企業(yè)中的網(wǎng)絡(luò)關(guān)系。我們分析的是在什么條件下一個(gè)旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)的戰(zhàn)略因其地理范圍，部門條件和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)而采取截然不同的策略。我們探討的是零售商為什么、何時(shí)將采取旗艦戰(zhàn)略？tesco、the body shop、lvmh、兩家以英國(guó)為基地的跨國(guó)零售商和一家

3、以法國(guó)為基地的零售商這些企業(yè)都為跨國(guó)零售商。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這些零售商之間存在著強(qiáng)烈的關(guān)系，但他們擁抱網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略的原因不同。它們的旗艦關(guān)系取決于每一個(gè)零售商使用的廠商特定優(yōu)勢(shì)和國(guó)家的特定優(yōu)勢(shì)。我們發(fā)覺旗艦戰(zhàn)略可以成功地克服內(nèi)部或環(huán)境限制跨境資金的轉(zhuǎn)移，這就阻礙了在外國(guó)的直接投資（fdi）。為了在國(guó)際上取得成功，我們提供的建議是零售商何時(shí)優(yōu)先使用旗艦型戰(zhàn)略和哪種類型的網(wǎng)絡(luò)伙伴。關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)際零售業(yè)，旗艦戰(zhàn)略，網(wǎng)絡(luò)，lvmh,tesco，the body shop，跨國(guó)公司，廠商特定優(yōu)勢(shì)，區(qū)域戰(zhàn)略緒 論這是眾所周知的是，在眾多經(jīng)濟(jì)因素里面零售業(yè)是最國(guó)際化的企業(yè)的一種。但事實(shí)上，在2000年一年里，世界頂尖的2

4、1零售商的海外資產(chǎn)沒有超過26%。相比之下，煙草制造商在國(guó)外資產(chǎn)卻占到其78%的總資產(chǎn)。而化工跨國(guó)公司在國(guó)外資產(chǎn)也占到50%的總資產(chǎn)，以及制藥公司在國(guó)外資產(chǎn)占到了40%的總資產(chǎn)。這反映了跨國(guó)界高度限制了零售商的轉(zhuǎn)移能力。盡管存在著這些制約的因素，但在國(guó)際化，增加區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化的北美洲，歐洲和亞洲，國(guó)際零售業(yè)務(wù)近來卻屢創(chuàng)佳。與制造業(yè)相比，在零售業(yè)里面，國(guó)際化是完全沒有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的，就好像我們經(jīng)常討論在歐洲的沃爾瑪和玩具反斗城，在美國(guó)的荷蘭皇家阿霍德，和在中國(guó)的家樂福一樣突出。零售商主要選擇兩種國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略。首先，他們可以轉(zhuǎn)移自己的資源，創(chuàng)造一個(gè)專有網(wǎng)絡(luò)的外國(guó)子公司，即通過外國(guó)直接投資(fdi)。這一戰(zhàn)略

5、涉及新建發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略或收購(gòu)當(dāng)?shù)噩F(xiàn)有球員，或兩者兼而有之。在這篇文章里我們稱這是一種國(guó)際化的策略。另外，為限制其資本和實(shí)體的接觸，零售商可以選擇國(guó)際化的網(wǎng)絡(luò)建設(shè)與區(qū)域伙伴，如關(guān)鍵的供應(yīng)商，主要零售伙伴，主要競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手和非商業(yè)組織的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。這些都在發(fā)揮不同的增值作用。我們稱這是另一種旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)的策略。在這篇文章里，我們更注重第二種策略。我們需要研究的是一個(gè)探索性案例研究的方法，這種方法需要知道我們調(diào)查到什么程度，以及在何種情況下零售商會(huì)依賴旗艦戰(zhàn)略以克服其資源和能力轉(zhuǎn)移的限制，達(dá)到減輕對(duì)外地人賠償責(zé)任。為了說明國(guó)際化，我們選擇了tesco、lvmh和the body shop進(jìn)行調(diào)查，來說明零售企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略

6、定位的重要性和企業(yè)之間的差異。通過對(duì)這三家零售企業(yè)的調(diào)查，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了它們成功的國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略與實(shí)施一項(xiàng)旗艦戰(zhàn)略的證據(jù)。然而，他們因?yàn)椴煌潭群筒煌脑驅(qū)嵤┝似炫灢呗?。這些差異取決于他們轉(zhuǎn)移自己資源的能力和利用國(guó)家特定優(yōu)勢(shì)的能力。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，一個(gè)旗艦戰(zhàn)略基于長(zhǎng)期的合作和與網(wǎng)絡(luò)伙伴學(xué)習(xí)的策略，這些策略用于克服內(nèi)部或限制跨境資金轉(zhuǎn)移的。這些研究結(jié)果對(duì)管理有著重要的影響。旗 艦 戰(zhàn) 略我們調(diào)查零售商何時(shí)和為什么會(huì)選擇這樣一種旗艦國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略。我們建議，當(dāng)企業(yè)面臨著內(nèi)部和環(huán)境的限制時(shí)，他們應(yīng)該實(shí)施國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略，以轉(zhuǎn)移其權(quán)能跨越邊界的一些限制，這樣可以比較容易進(jìn)入一些外國(guó)市場(chǎng)建設(shè)區(qū)域網(wǎng)絡(luò)，成為當(dāng)?shù)氐闹匾锇?，而?/p>

7、是采用任意的投資策略。本文在眾多的"網(wǎng)絡(luò)化"的配置方法中，突出旗艦戰(zhàn)略是一種好的策略。 而長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略，包括選定一個(gè)中心的網(wǎng)上合作伙伴。相反，在研究許多突出的雙邊關(guān)系之中，零售業(yè)的旗艦卻能對(duì)公司的網(wǎng)絡(luò)產(chǎn)生全方位的影響。圖1列出了旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)的五個(gè)伙伴框架。一般跨國(guó)公司的發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，主要是為了加強(qiáng)國(guó)際化的學(xué)習(xí)，減少不確定性因素。首要的成員是網(wǎng)絡(luò)的戰(zhàn)略中心即跨國(guó)公司，在戰(zhàn)略方向上她控制著整個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的每一個(gè)旗艦?？鐕?guó)公司依靠的是四種類型的跨境合作伙伴以加強(qiáng)其國(guó)際擴(kuò)張的,而不是官僚的縱向整合。那些發(fā)展重要競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)旗艦的關(guān)鍵供應(yīng)商，他們明白他們的投入和服務(wù)是增加生產(chǎn)附加值的一種有效方式

8、。他們主要客戶是從事專門分銷和中介的企業(yè)和最終消費(fèi)者，而非商業(yè)設(shè)施( nbi)是由非牟利機(jī)構(gòu)和相關(guān)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)跨國(guó)的旗艦公司組成的。這些合作伙伴可以是政府機(jī)構(gòu)，大學(xué)，研究中心或行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)。最后，主要競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者是那些可以選擇結(jié)盟合資的情況下承擔(dān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)大于另一方卻能夠支持的旗艦公司。為了網(wǎng)絡(luò)成功地向國(guó)際擴(kuò)張，跨國(guó)旗艦公司會(huì)提供戰(zhàn)略和管理。五個(gè)伙伴通過全方位的信息流通，相互自由和公開地了解和互補(bǔ)，這些是必要的管理技能，以提高整體的網(wǎng)絡(luò)性能。雖然上下游合作伙伴，關(guān)鍵的分銷商和供應(yīng)商所有的關(guān)系都是在長(zhǎng)期中建立起來的，但他們自己放棄戰(zhàn)略方向的旗艦舉動(dòng)使他們獲得更多的增值的權(quán)力。關(guān)鍵伙伴的任務(wù)一般由大家共同商定的。

9、主要供應(yīng)商依賴的是國(guó)際基準(zhǔn),而不是競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性招標(biāo)。所有這些特質(zhì)使得旗艦戰(zhàn)略不同于其他網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的戰(zhàn)略。有些網(wǎng)絡(luò)的研究側(cè)重于社會(huì)關(guān)系的個(gè)人和團(tuán)體，沒有任何具體的戰(zhàn)略意圖和其它有戰(zhàn)略管理的目的，很少涉及國(guó)際商務(wù)問題。承認(rèn)旗艦戰(zhàn)略在國(guó)際管理領(lǐng)域的貢獻(xiàn)，是分辨旗艦框架與多重網(wǎng)絡(luò)的重要區(qū)別。相比之下，戰(zhàn)略管理流中的旗艦強(qiáng)調(diào)網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略，這些戰(zhàn)略要求創(chuàng)新，靈活學(xué)習(xí)，發(fā)展能力。 這種內(nèi)部網(wǎng)絡(luò)工作模式的公司，就好像“協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制”(建議hedlund ) 和“區(qū)別網(wǎng)絡(luò)”諾利亞和高沙爾?？墒牵麄儏s注重內(nèi)部的組織水平。在跨組織一級(jí)lorenzoni和巴登-詳盡的“戰(zhàn)略中心”，是我們最接近的旗艦概念，因?yàn)樗鼜?qiáng)調(diào)戰(zhàn)略中心負(fù)責(zé)協(xié)調(diào)

10、多個(gè)網(wǎng)站的合作伙伴，無論是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的分擔(dān)，還是創(chuàng)新和彈性的增值。然而，這樣的配置和其他方面，都不能與國(guó)際接軌。他們忽視了一個(gè)很重要的挑戰(zhàn)，經(jīng)理人面向國(guó)際化時(shí)如何克服對(duì)外直接投資，公司有限地域轉(zhuǎn)移能力。the håkanson和johansson都認(rèn)為這些是來自國(guó)際化的挑戰(zhàn)。但與此相反的是，the håkanson和johansson的“工業(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)”并沒有戰(zhàn)略上領(lǐng)導(dǎo)跨國(guó)公司，實(shí)際上只是作為戰(zhàn)略中心的合作伙伴。反之，其網(wǎng)絡(luò)配置分為幾個(gè)戰(zhàn)略中心及周邊廠商等，他們強(qiáng)調(diào)在子網(wǎng)中不同權(quán)力間的爭(zhēng)斗。如果在旗艦戰(zhàn)略中沒有伙伴是競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的人，這就限制了政治沖突。旗艦的這種策略，也有別于當(dāng)?shù)丶汉献?/p>

11、類型的公司，這種合作可以跨越地理疆界。但由于的總體產(chǎn)業(yè)水平使得各公司難以解開利益。他們尤其重視企業(yè)的戰(zhàn)略，策略旗艦列出了另外兩個(gè)鮮明的特點(diǎn)。第一，旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)依賴的不對(duì)稱的旗艦跨國(guó)公司戰(zhàn)略及其伙伴。不對(duì)稱戰(zhàn)略是該網(wǎng)絡(luò)以遏制危險(xiǎn)的機(jī)會(huì)主義招致外界協(xié)調(diào)的關(guān)鍵治理機(jī)制的層次。事實(shí)上，通過共享跨機(jī)構(gòu)，戰(zhàn)略不對(duì)稱增加了網(wǎng)絡(luò)的穩(wěn)定性，目的是基于一個(gè)明確固定的戰(zhàn)略議程協(xié)議的界定。如果所有伙伴參與戰(zhàn)略的制定和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的目標(biāo)，合作伙伴將會(huì)破壞信任和共同的目的。也有利于發(fā)展跨組織“共同語(yǔ)言”的學(xué)習(xí)。旗艦就是學(xué)習(xí)的協(xié)調(diào)員或主持人。其次，旗艦戰(zhàn)略是基于一貫的多邊和全方位的合作伙伴關(guān)系。這項(xiàng)研究考慮的是在旗艦策略上，一段時(shí)間里

12、一種或兩種類型的相互作用的重要商業(yè)伙伴。旗艦戰(zhàn)略也有它以非經(jīng)營(yíng)性基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施屬性的重要作用。總體而言，當(dāng)他們受到轉(zhuǎn)移資源的阻礙，或者當(dāng)他們?cè)跂|道國(guó)市場(chǎng)面對(duì)巨大的環(huán)境壓力，旗艦戰(zhàn)略以其獨(dú)特的形態(tài)特征，以更有效和高效率幫助企業(yè)實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)際化。當(dāng)投資存在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和困難時(shí)，企業(yè)應(yīng)以協(xié)調(diào)網(wǎng)的關(guān)鍵伙伴，作為他們的戰(zhàn)略中心。以前我們分析的案例，存在著特殊的情況?，F(xiàn)在我們引入新的理念，運(yùn)用新的方法研究我們的案例。樣 本 選 擇在世界500家強(qiáng)零售企業(yè)中，有49家是我國(guó)的企業(yè)，因此我們主要關(guān)心的是要找準(zhǔn)旗艦網(wǎng)誕生的不同成因，我們挑選了其中3家零售商，從中內(nèi)置三種不同的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)背下，以最大限度的概率攝取足夠的差異,在零售商的網(wǎng)絡(luò)

13、戰(zhàn)略：(一)零售商的戰(zhàn)略位置，(二)零售商的國(guó)際化水平即其地理范圍，(三)各企業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境。首先,零售商的戰(zhàn)略定位是指各種不同的通用策略和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)策略。因此，這樣的配置以獨(dú)特的方式，配合自己的內(nèi)部環(huán)境和外部環(huán)境，把自己的國(guó)際化目標(biāo)結(jié)合起來堅(jiān)定地創(chuàng)造產(chǎn)業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。按照這個(gè)邏輯，因?yàn)榫W(wǎng)絡(luò)伙伴零售商的國(guó)際化，不同的經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境力量應(yīng)當(dāng)有助于確定雙方的交易成本和資源。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，盡管tesco在英國(guó)和其他一些歐洲國(guó)家的市場(chǎng)份額不斷在增長(zhǎng)是基于其成本領(lǐng)先戰(zhàn)略驅(qū)動(dòng)。世界著名的奢侈品集團(tuán)lvmh和the body shop是一種有限范圍產(chǎn)品是細(xì)分：中程化妝品。從合作的國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)略看，tesco的是一個(gè)“大陸領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人

14、”, lvmh是全球奢侈品的小生運(yùn)動(dòng)員和the body shop則是一個(gè)“世界各地的專科生”。其次，國(guó)際化范圍指的是跨國(guó)公司的地域覆蓋。國(guó)際文化一貫強(qiáng)調(diào)地理多樣化，這是企業(yè)資源轉(zhuǎn)移對(duì)區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化和業(yè)績(jī)的挑戰(zhàn)。最近在國(guó)際業(yè)務(wù)上的證據(jù)顯示，世界500強(qiáng)的跨國(guó)公司大部分不是全球性的，而是以國(guó)內(nèi)-國(guó)外為基礎(chǔ)；或是雙區(qū)域的，在這三種區(qū)域中僅有9家企業(yè)是全球性銷售的。更大的程度上說，區(qū)分區(qū)域的必要性增加，是適應(yīng)不同的市場(chǎng)和體制的條件。tesco是以國(guó)內(nèi)-地區(qū)為主的形式( 92的銷售額來自歐洲和8來自亞洲)。the body shop也是國(guó)內(nèi)地區(qū)為主的，其53銷售額在歐洲。最后，企業(yè)和環(huán)境一些的因素是有

15、助于確定零售企業(yè)跨境轉(zhuǎn)移的能力。在部分的雜貨零售，包含著民族風(fēng)味、文化、宗教、地方規(guī)劃規(guī)章和產(chǎn)品的限制。這些限制也適用于tesco。在奢侈零售部分, 跨境分歧精英產(chǎn)品和品牌微乎其微,因?yàn)橥愋偷漠a(chǎn)品統(tǒng)一制定。這種不同的環(huán)境條件，適用于lvmh并影響著其國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略。在外觀部分有一些消費(fèi)者口味的差異和分布的復(fù)雜性上漲引起的化妝品市場(chǎng)占有率，這種環(huán)境的限制,就適用于tbs。數(shù)據(jù)的收集和分析我們使用了多種收集數(shù)據(jù)的方法。 第一,為了評(píng)估這三個(gè)零售商是否有著不同的國(guó)際聯(lián)網(wǎng)策略，我們采用了試點(diǎn)的方法面試高層管理人員。首先,這些受訪者按照我們的指示完成了一系列的內(nèi)部答卷。在我們對(duì)3家零售商及整個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的合作伙

16、伴的高級(jí)管理層面上共進(jìn)行了21次面試:從上游和下游選定競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手和非商業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)，如學(xué)校、企業(yè)和行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)。每次訪談持續(xù)一個(gè)小時(shí)。從訪談中我們推斷出了一個(gè)具有5個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)和1051碼的層次結(jié)構(gòu),以幫助減少其中的偏見和控制的偏差。這種方法產(chǎn)生了一種多面觀的現(xiàn)象。案 例在這一節(jié)中,我們探討兩個(gè)問題的研究。首先，我們考慮旗艦的網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略和三家零售商的國(guó)際成功之間的聯(lián)系。第二，我們嘗試從不同的角度可以解釋其網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略。不同級(jí)別的旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)關(guān)系著三家零售商如表3，在不同程度的旗艦網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略的情況下，由三家零售商精心選擇，會(huì)觀察到有趣的情況。從中我們知道，零售商的旗艦戰(zhàn)略有助于他們目前國(guó)際化的成功。tesco是英國(guó)湄公河領(lǐng)先

17、的零售商，它至少擁有三個(gè)旗艦型的戰(zhàn)略,而且它越來越多地依靠旗艦型這樣的策略了。在歐洲,它采用了直接投資的國(guó)際化戰(zhàn)略進(jìn)入了匈牙利、波蘭、捷克共和國(guó)、斯洛伐克共和國(guó)和愛爾蘭。在亞洲,由于許多具體的原因，tesco更多地依靠合資進(jìn)行投資,在英國(guó)它已經(jīng)成功地實(shí)行了多種經(jīng)營(yíng)方式和為關(guān)鍵伙伴服務(wù)。按照收入的比例估計(jì),這些聯(lián)合活動(dòng)從2001年的3.3增加到了2002年的4.8%，可真正的情況是, 以合作關(guān)系為基礎(chǔ)的銷售增長(zhǎng)率(在2001年到2002年一年中，銷售增長(zhǎng)率幾乎達(dá)到了67% )超過了集團(tuán)總收入增長(zhǎng)(在同一時(shí)期的增長(zhǎng)率為11.3%)。tesco在國(guó)外同樣也有關(guān)鍵的合作關(guān)系和自己的品牌廠商。供應(yīng)鏈總監(jiān)

18、明確表示：我們知道我們不可能自己一個(gè)人能贏。而建立伙伴關(guān)系卻是我們文化中的一部分。我們珍視我們的供應(yīng)商和服務(wù)提供商我們對(duì)待我們的顧客一樣。我們還觀察到了一些沒有直接的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)關(guān)系的重要協(xié)作與非商業(yè)的對(duì)手。部分原因是由于它的旗艦戰(zhàn)略，tesco在國(guó)際上銷售的份額在過去的五年內(nèi)增長(zhǎng)了近一倍,從9.8上升到18(從1998年到 2002年)。從表3的數(shù)據(jù)中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了較新的關(guān)系，其中卻是存在著不對(duì)稱的網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略。隨著非商業(yè)設(shè)施重要性的增加，導(dǎo)致我們將tesco重新界定為一種新興的旗艦。lvmh是世界上領(lǐng)先的奢侈品零售商。merryl lynch估計(jì)其2001年的全球市場(chǎng)占有率為21%。其2002年的銷售額

19、為13168百萬(wàn)歐元。所以它的銷售額只是tesco的三分之一。但christian dior、louis vuitton、moët & chandon和hennessy cognac這樣的品牌,它們的先兆都是國(guó)際性的。而lvmh公司實(shí)施的就是一種宗教性的策略。我們的重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的是lvmh fashion group，比起tesco的下游企業(yè)，它提出了更高程度的旗艦策略。在日本和美國(guó)的百貨公司，就非常強(qiáng)調(diào)特許店。總的來說,我們估計(jì),時(shí)裝集團(tuán)的營(yíng)業(yè)額的28%是通過良好的伙伴關(guān)系得來的。通過良好的伙伴關(guān)系得來的營(yíng)業(yè)額可能已高達(dá)lvmh2002年年度總收入的10%。這個(gè)比例已經(jīng)是相當(dāng)高

20、的，而且也不被期望lvmh的策略是完全依靠一個(gè)全集成配電網(wǎng)。lvmh已減少了要依賴少數(shù)關(guān)鍵要素提供而經(jīng)營(yíng)某些產(chǎn)品的做法。就像tesco一樣, lvmh沒有聯(lián)盟和直接的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,除了comité colbert。它是一家促進(jìn)法國(guó)豪宅權(quán)益協(xié)會(huì)。然而,該集團(tuán)最近開始與戴比爾斯進(jìn)行合資，分銷鉆石。最后，lvmh積極依靠非經(jīng)營(yíng)性基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,以提高其國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力(見表3 )。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域, lvmh是唯一一家已成為全球性的，在財(cái)富500強(qiáng)種的零售商。其國(guó)際銷售額更在上升, 在2002年間從81%增加到83%。總之, lvmh是一個(gè)運(yùn)行良好的旗艦。regional business networks an

21、d the multinational retail sectorstéphane j.g. girod and alan m. rugmanabstractin this paper we examine the network relationships of a set of large retail multinational enterprises (mnes). we analyze under what conditions a flagship-network strategy (characterized by a network of five partners

22、the mne; key suppliers; key partners; selected competitors; and key organisations in the non-business infrastructure) explains the internationalisation of three retailers whose geographic scope, sectoral conditions and competitive strategies differ substantially. we explore why and when retailers wi

23、ll adopt a flagship strategy. the three firms are tesco and the body shop, two u.k.-based multinational retailers, and moët hennessy louis vuitton (lvmh), a french-based global retailer. we find evidence of strong network relationships for all three retailers, yet they embrace network strategie

24、s for different reasons. their flagship relationships depend on each retailers strategic use of firm-specific-advantages (fsas) and country-specific advantages (csas). we find that a flagship strategy succeeds in overcoming internal and/or environmental constraints to cross-border resource transfers

25、, which are barriers to foreign direct investment (fdi). we provide recommendations on why and when to use a flagship-based strategy and which type of network partners to prioritize in order to succeed internationally.keywords: international retailing; flagship strategy; networks; lvmh; tesco; the b

26、ody shop; multinational; firm-specific advantages; regional strategy.article outlineintroductionthe flagship strategy methods sample selection data gathering and analysisthe three cases i) evidence of different levels of flagship-network relations across the three retailers ii) evidence of different

27、 factors underlying network strategies tesco lvmh the body shopsummary of these caseslinking flagship theory to the fsa/csa matrix strategic implications (i) choose a de-internalised international expansion path based on your initial competitive advantage position. (ii) in the flagship network, crea

28、te synergies between all key partners. (iii) give time to go international.conclusions acknowledgements references vitae22introductionit is well known that the retail industry is one of the least internationalised among leading economic sectors. indeed, in 2000, the worlds top twenty retailers held

29、no more than 26% of their assets overseas. in contrast, foreign assets accounted for 78% of tobacco manufacturers total assets, 50% of chemical multinationals total assets, and 40% of pharmaceutical companies total assets. this reflects the highly specific constraints on the transfer of retailers ca

30、pabilities across national borders. these constraints persist in spite of the opportunities offered to retailers for internationalisation by increasing regional economic integration in north america, europe and asia. slow sectoral internationalisation coupled with the recent remarkable international

31、 achievements of a few retailers has renewed interest in international retailing. in retailing, sometimes more than in manufacturing, internationalisation is not risk free, as the frequently discussed troubles of wal-mart and toys r us in europe, royal ahold in the united states, and carrefour in ch

32、ina have highlighted. retailers have two major strategic choices in internationalisation. first, they can transfer their resources by creating a proprietary network of foreign subsidiaries, i.e. through foreign direct investment (fdi). this strategy involves either greenfield development strategies

33、(the firm sets up its operations from scratch), or acquisitions of existing local players or a combination of both. in this article we call this an internalisation strategy . alternatively, to limit their capital and physical exposure, retailers can internationalise by building networks with local a

34、nd regional partners, such as key suppliers, key retail partners, key competitors and non-business infrastructure organisations that perform different value added activities in partnership with the retailer. we call this alternative a flagship-network strategy. here, we focus on the latter. our rese

35、arch takes an exploratory case study approach to investigate to what extent and in which circumstances retailers will rely on a flagship strategy to overcome their resource and capability transfer limits, to reduce their liability of foreignness, and to sustain internationalisation. the cases invest

36、igated are tesco, moët hennessy louis vuitton (lvmh) and the body shop, selected for their important strategy positioning and sectoral differences. across the three retailers we find evidence of successful internationalisation correlated with the implementation of a flagship strategy. yet they

37、embrace a flagship strategy in different degrees and for different reasons. these differences depend on the transferability of their resources and capabilities and on their use of country-specific advantages (csas). we find that, contingent on these dimensions, a flagship strategy based on long-term

38、 collaboration and learning with network partners is the best strategy to overcome internal and/or environmental constraints to cross-border resource transfers, which are barriers to fdi. we highlight the managerial implications of these findings.the flagship srategywe investigate when and why retai

39、lers will opt for a flagship internationalisation strategy. we propose that mnes facing internal and environmental constraints to their internationalisationi.e. some limits to the transfer of their competencies across borderare better off entering certain foreign markets by building networks of loca

40、l and regional key partners than by adopting a go-it-alone fdi strategy. among the multiple “network” configurations described in the literature, the flagship strategy alone highlights the benefits of a corporate-planned, long-term based internationalisation strategy which involves one central multi

41、national and a web of selected partners. in contrast with many studies which highlight bilateral relationships in retailing, the flagship goes a step further by enabling firms to leverage multidirectional network effects. figure 1 presents the flagship-network five partners framework. the rationale

42、for the mne to develop a flagship strategy is to reduce uncertainty while internationalising and increasing learning. the first member is the networks strategic centre, i.e. the mne which acts as a flagship in terms of strategic control and direction for the entire network. the mne relies on four ty

43、pes of cross-border partners to increase its international expansion rather than on bureaucratic vertical integration. figure 1 herekey suppliers are those whose inputs are critical to the development of the flagships competitive advantage. the flagship recognises in them the ability to produce valu

44、e added inputs and services in an efficient manner. key customers are businesses specialising in distribution and intermediation with final consumers. the non-business infrastructure (nbi) is made up of non-profit organisations that are relevant to the flagship firms competitiveness across borders.

45、these partners can be government agencies, universities, research centres or trade associations. finally, key competitors are those firms that the flagship may select to form alliances of joint ventures in the cases where the economic risks to be borne are greater than one party alone can support. t

46、he flagship mne provides the strategic vision and coordination to lead the network through successful international expansion. all five partners interact freely and openly with each other and the complementarities of skills necessary to improve the overall network performance are coordinated by the

47、flagship through a multi-directional information flow. although the upstream and downstream partners, the key distributors and the key suppliers relinquish strategic direction to the flagship (strategic asymmetry), they gain additional decentralised value-added activities of their own. all relations

48、hips are long-term and knowledge-sharing agreements. key partners specialize in achieving commonly agreed tasks. relationships with key suppliers rely on international benchmarking rather than on competitive tendering. all these traits make the flagship strategy quite distinct from other network str

49、ategies in the literature. while some network studies focus on social relations between individuals and organisations but without any specific strategic intent and others have a strategic management purpose, few address international business issues. to recognize the contribution of flagship strateg

50、y to the international management field, it is important to differentiate the flagship framework from multiple and heterogeneous definitions of networks. as underscored in table 1 which contrasts these different views with the flagship, sociological accounts of networks either emphasise the network

51、landscape in which firms are broadly embedded (see nohrias work for instance), or inter-personal networks where the structure and the nature of ties between individuals is the object of study (see for example burts or krackhardts developments). these views have only indirectly emphasised the benefit

52、s of networks for firms innovation, competitive advantage creation, and learning. in contrast, the strategic management stream to which the flagship strategy belongs emphasises strategic networks geared toward innovation, flexibility, learning, and capability development. this work models firms as i

53、nternal networks, such as the heterarchy (proposed by hedlund), and the differentiated network by nohria and ghoshal. yet they have focused on the intra-organisational level. at the inter-organisational level lorenzoni and baden-fullers strategic centre is the closest to the flagship concept since i

54、t stresses the role of one lean firm, the strategic centre which coordinates a web of multiple partners, both upstream and upstream to share risks, innovate and gain flexibility. however, this configuration, and others, are not internationally oriented. they neglect one crucial challenge facing mana

55、gers contemplating internationalisation: how to overcome barriers to fdi when the firm has limitedly geographically transferable capabilities (i.e. when it lacks the capabilities needed to operate in foreign markets, and/or when host-environments are hostile.) the håkanson and johanssons framew

56、ork does consider these internationalisation challenges (in addition to innovation-enhancement), but in contrast with the flagship, håkanson and johanssons industrial networks do not feature a strategically leading multinational firm that acts as a strategic centre for all the partners. instead

57、, their network configuration consists of several strategic centres and peripheral firms such that they emphasise power rivalries between different sub-networks. in the flagship strategy, however, no partner is the rival of the others, which limits political clashes. the flagship strategy is also distinct from typologies of locally based clusters of cooperative firms (porter) which can also cooperate across geographic boundaries (nachum and keeble) but which are analyzed at an aggrega