Presentation on International Marketing and Migrant Owned Enterprises

Prof. Czinkota is presenting collectively with Prof. Gary Knight and Prof. Zaheer Khan the latest research on International Marketing and Migrant Owned Enterprises. Click on the link to view slides highlighting insights from their research!

The Case for Cuban Engagement

After six decades of communist rule in Cuba, the island is now governed by someone outside of the Castro family for the first time since the 1959 revolution. The new leader, Miguel Diaz-Canel, was vice president and a provincial party chief.

Many believe that the political and economic status quo of the Caribbean nation is unlikely to change. However, lessons from the business world indicate that any change in an organization’s key leaders ushers in a new era for a company.

Whether it’s an acquisition, merger or the appointment of a new CEO, these transformations usually carry enormous repercussions for key functions.

New priorities are typically manifested by new promotions, new players, new rules and new aims. In turn, this results in shifting financial conditions, new private developments and new service assortments.

When applying such transition effects onto countries, one could argue that there is an opportunity for President Trump to act decisively in formalizing and normalizing trade relations with Cuba if conciliatory and meaningful changes are made.

For example, changes could be made so that there are no longer higher hotel rates for Americans than for Europeans, as well as no more ongoing accusations or regurgitation of historic events that have long passed.

Curative International Marketing, a theory developed at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, directly addresses past errors and focuses on long-term restitution and improvements.

Such a move would advance U.S. businesses and their strategic interests while allowing Cuban citizens to operate in the private sector independent of the communist regime.

So far in the Trump administration, the opposite tactic has been taken by restricting American travel and trade with Cuba, which is a reversal of President Barack Obama’s policies.

A pro-business posture allows for increased commercial relations (beyond cigars) that would be more effective in countering the interests of the Cuban military’s monopoly in business.

This policy would empower private Cuban entrepreneurs by eliminating their dependence on the Cuban state apparatus and open them up to U.S. leadership and influence in the region. Private success over public ventures would speak volumes in favor of new economic and social thinking.

As a first measure, restoring the capacity for U.S. citizens to schedule individual visits to Cuba, which was eliminated in 2017, should be considered.

The potential economic boon for Cuba’s tourist industry could eventually stimulate growth in both the U.S. and Cuban economies. Also, this measure would promote democratization and bolster innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit in Cuba.

The recent promising developments in the Korean Peninsula indicate that diplomacy rather than deterrence can advance American interests in places where ideological and strategic divisions run deep. As the White House approaches a deal in East Asia, it could apply the lessons learned from the North Korean negotiations closer to home in Cuba.

President Trump’s acumen for dealmaking can face an ultimate test in Cuba. Opening conversations — and trade — with the island could mark a vast improvement in the bilateral relationship. Hopefully, the American people can look forward to the use of politics that shapes a future good for all of us.

Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent.

Lisa Burgoa of the School of Foreign Service contributed to this commentary.

TERRORISM, COMPETITIVENESS, AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING – (3/6)

TERRORISM, COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING

SEARCHING FOR CORPORATE EFFECTS

(Third in a series)

Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center, Germany

Michael R. Czinkota , Georgetown University USA and University of Kent, UK

Gary Knight, Willamette University, USA

The scientific approach is largely driven by hypotheses  which are analyzed as to their likelihood of being acceptable, true and robust. We present thoughts on the odds and consequences of relationships between international marketing and terrorism. We suggest arms length and reliable insights which improve our contextual understanding and decision making. Here are several hypotheses which we postulate are associated with terrorism and corporate action.

First are increases in Marketing Costs, accompanied by disruptions of supply chains. Interruptions in global supply chains tend to cause shortages or delays of critical inputs, which affect corporate strategies and performance, shrink shareholder value, and reduce the  consumption of goods and services. Perhaps the entire “just in time” production processes of a firm and its supply chain may need to be reconfigured.  Increased security measures heighten the complexity of motion which increases costs. Contextual volatility raises the cost of coordination, as suppliers and distributors devote more resources to environmental scanning, information processing, and negotiating with their suppliers for synchronized responses to rapid changes within all affected organizations.

For marketing planning, design, and organization we believe that an increase in the threat or occurrence of terrorism, makes management select its risk as a salient factor in the firm’s international marketing planning, supply chain management and organization of global distribution channels. To develop business strategies which minimize the firm’s exposure, managers tend to avoid direct investment and to require higher returns on investment.  Exports can rise but with higher cost assessments for the development of new infrastructure in terrorism-prone areas.  Terrorism also appears to depress buyer psychology and consumption.

International Experience plays a major role in the firm’s marketing planning, and the design and organization of the firm’s global distribution channels. The acquisition, interpretation and distribution of knowledge are critical for optimizing performance of global supply chains, and achieving superior resilience  and market share. Reducing the firm’s risk due to unfamiliarity with a market, also called the “liability of foreignness”, pays off by decreasing market operational uncertainties, and shrinking  surprises. It pays off to be on site,  a motto which argues for  multi-dexterity in international strategy.  Substantial experience in numerous foreign markets is greater than the sum of its parts, and becomes a strategic asset when a firm must confront terrorism in its global operations.

Organizational Resources of the firm affect its competitive advantage. They can strengthen assets such as in-house knowledge, skilled personnel, superior strategies, and financial reserves. The ability of firms to succeed in light of international business adversity is largely a function of the resources available to explore alternatives.

Resource-restricted firms face greater challenges to create a solid business foundation by researching foreign markets and potential partners.  Conversely, well-resourced firms have a greater capacity to undertake international ventures that will perform well. Therefore, we expect that firms with comparatively abundant resources will be better positioned to undertake sophisticated international marketing preparations. They can incorporate the environmentatl contingencies of terrorism into their planning, their development of supply chains, and their distribution channels, all key components of international success.

Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is “International Marketing” (10th ed., CENGAGE).

TERRORISM, COMPETITIVENESS, AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING – (2/6)

Time to Limit the Payoff for Terrorists

Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center, Germany

Michael R. Czinkota , Georgetown University USA and University of Kent, UK

Gary Knight, Willamette University, USA

Terrorists want more “bang for their buck” by undertaking high-impact events, choosing high visibility targets and directing their violence at less well-guarded “soft targets” such as transportation systems, business and private facilities.

Terrorism in the firm’s external environment is designed to create organizational confusion and contextual volatility, which refers to discontinous changes and requires firms to make frequent, abrupt, unexpected, and untested adjustments to their business strategies and operations. There also tends to be a perhaps misleading belief that terrorism responsive decisions must always be made swiftly.

Terrorists deliberately target non-combatants and insufficiently protected physical facilities. The globalization of commerce, travel, and information flows have enhanced the ease with which terrorism can be carried out, and increased the visibility and availability of potential terrorist targets. Port facilities, industrial clusters, shopping centers and financial districts are among numerous assets susceptible to terrorism via low-tech approaches. The threat is especially salient to firms with business facilities and infrastructure in multiple and diverse locations abroad, each one of which may need tailor-made protective measures. When evil doers make multiple-tap asynchronous attacks, losses can exceed worst-case scenario planning. Institutions and firms of industrialized nations are most vulnerable when they operate in emerging countries. MNE supply chains are vulnerable to potential long-term harm, particularly with firms whose first and second tier suppliers stretch around the world, in and out of risky environments. Any physical movement of goods introduces risk, disruptions and delays, but in developing nations more so.

Perceptions of threats from terrorism reduce the likelihood that firms will expend assets abroad, particularly in emerging economies that might become terrorism-prone areas in future. Companies spend billions annually to manage terrorism-induced risk and comply with terrorism-related government procedures and regulations.

Uncertainty is an attribute of marketing environments, particularly in international markets. Marketing activity is vulnerable to terrorism through disrupted international logistics, supply chain and distribution activities, insufficient information flows, and growing global demand for industrial and consumer goods. The complexity formed by linkages among terrorists, producers, buyers, and public actors reflects how with only 3-4 alternatives for each option, terrorism quickly represents hard to control and large number of scenarios. Furthermore, terrorism can trigger imposition of new regulations and procedures, which can hamper corporate activities. Security can reduce but not eliminate terrorism or fully insulate the firm from attacks. Government regulations aimed at preventing terrorism generate delays and increase the cost of business transactions, affecting company competitiveness.

The marketing organization comprises a bundle of strategic resources. Abundant material and effective alternative capabilities are traditionally associated with superior performance in international marketing ventures. The payoff from strategic resource stock piles is only realized when management activates situation specific organizational responses and behaviors, aligning them with clear and present changes in the corporate environment, not before.

The resource-based view (RBV) helps explain how firms develop and leverage organizational capabilities. Management structures, bundles, and leveraged resources determine the efficiency and effectiveness of company operations and organizational performance and robustness. The allocation of available marketing resources and the creation of new types of marketing tools are fundamental to the creation and maintenance of sustainable competitive advantages. Our research has found that many firms remain ill prepared to cope with terrorism, especially those operating in emerging markets. Firms often still respond passively or only reactively to the outslaught of terrorism. By contrast, we encourage firms to create proactive and innovative solutions for the management of terrorism threat.  This is what corporate innovation should be all about.

Such innovation must permeate organizational culture and be supported by new knowledge and technology enabling responsiveness to new, outwardly unexpected capabilities. Indeed, strongly innovative firms have highly developed and elaborated knowledge-creation routines and learning regimes.  A strong innovative culture supports the firm in developing responses tailor made for rapid deployment with new organizational capabilities. Rather than pursue just unidimensional thinking, ready for one action, firms need to deploy ambidextrous strategies and reinvent the situation specificity of their operations. Thus, management, which possesses a strong innovative culture and substantive awareness of even marginal threats of terrorism, might emerge less scathed from attack from that firms which are focused but limited in their outlook.

Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is “International Marketing” (10th ed., CENGAGE).

TERRORISM, COMPETITIVENESS, AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING – (1/6)


MARKETING ACROSS BORDERS UNDER CONDITIONS OF TERRORISM

An introductory note: Over the coming weeks, we will post a series of Prof. Czinkota’s work with Prof. Valbona Zeneli, from the Marshall Center in Germany and Prof. Gary Knight, of Willamette University, USA. The work presented here is based on the research titled “Terrorism, Competitiveness and International Marketing: An Empirical Investigation” which was published in the International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2018.  We thank Ms. Niparat Pitchayanonnetr our departmental assistant for her editorial contributions. The series presents insights into what has been labelled a key challenge to the global business world today.
Here is our first post in the series which, together with future postings, you can freely distribute with proper credit to the authors and source.

Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center, Germany

Michael R. Czinkota , Georgetown University USA and University of Kent, UK

Gary Knight, Willamette University, USA

Terrorism refers to the risk or actual encounter of violent acts designed to cause fear and intimidation.  Despite posing an important threat to internationally-active firms, there is a paucity of empirical research that addresses the distinctive challenges that terrorism poses to the international marketing activities of firms.  Here we first provide a theoretical background on terrorism and its effects on international marketing in emerging markets.  We then relate terrorism to operational costs, marketing planning, supply chain management and distribution activities in the multinational enterprise (MNE).  We recognize significant costs in the international marketing budget of MNEs. Firms with substantial resources and international experience appear to have more alternatives, which allow them to cope better with the effects of terrorism than their less endowed peers.

Terrorism is a salient threat to organizational competitiveness in international marketing. It is the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or subnational groups to obtain a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate non-combatant victims.

For terrorists, perception matters! Terrorist attacks around the world have increased greatly in the past decades, spanning 92 countries and over 28,000 fatalities in 2015 alone. Most attacks are directed at civilians, businesses, and business-related infrastructure. The five countries most exposed to terrorist attacks in recent years are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nigeria.

Emerging markets are particularly affected by terrorism since their businesses and citizens have less of an opportunity to protect themselves. Among the possible environmental contingencies that can affect marketing organizations – such as weak economic conditions, rising energy prices, financial crises – terrorism is identified as potentially the most serious threat. Since terrorists select their targets with high flexibility, intensity and precision, international firms seek competitive advantage through the expansion of production, distribution, and the marketing of products and services across multiple national boundaries. Terrorism sharply reduces corporate enthusiasm to expand. Measures to counter terrorism in turn are based of restricted freedom of movement and increased government regulation, both of which impair global commerce. The border-crossing effect of terrorism creates slowdowns for international transactions reaching 2.5% of merchandise value, which is comparable to the average level of global tariffs.

International trade depends on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of global transportation systems. Terrorism increases the transaction costs of international commerce and delays global supply chains and distribution channels. Terrorism’s main impact reaches far beyond its immediate and direct effects. Key are the long term results from the indirect effects that occur in national and global economies. These include widespread anxiety and uncertainty that affect buyer demand, shifts or interruptions in the supply of needed inputs, new government regulations and procedures enacted to deal with terrorism, and longer-term perceptions that alter patterns of global trade and investment. Terrorism can also affect managerial attitudes towards risk, shift the risk absorption capacity of firms, and reduce the likelihood of embarking on international ventures or new investments abroad.

Our Google search of the NGram viewer system analyzed the extent of terrorism-related writings, and checked for correlations with the key terms ‘trade,’ ‘investment’ and ‘risk’. The results indicate a rapid increase of concern about terrorism since 1998. This development serves as an indicator of the growing preoccupation (in the English-speaking literature at least) with terrorism. Concurrently, and as expected in terms of theory-based postulations, actual risk increased while trade and investment interests declined.

We believe that terrorism will continue to be a significant factor in international marketing for decades to come. The rise of terrorism signals a new type of threat relevant to both developed and emerging economies. As governments increase security of public facilities, the likelihood of attacks against the softer targets of firms’ international operations is likely to increase.  Emerging economies need to find ways to increase their security in order to retain their attractiveness for foreign sourcing and investments. Corporate preparedness for the unexpected is a vital task. Innovative managers develop appropriate resources, and undertake planning and strategies to accommodate dislocations and sudden shocks. Terrorism represents an organizational crisis whose ultimate effects may be unexpected and unknown, posing a significant threat to the survival or performance of the firm.  Terrorism presents the firm with a dilemma that requires new decision-making and behaviors that will result in organizational change.  Firms that neglect to devote resources and capabilities to respond flexibly to terrorist triggered disruptions, risk sudden, sometimes even, total loss of competitive advantage. We follow the thinking of former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who stated: “There are known knowns, which are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns, these are things we don’t know we don’t know”. The goal should be to analyze the role of terrorism under all three conditions.

Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is “International Marketing” (10th ed., CENGAGE)

.