sustainability

Article
The Differing Foreign Entry Mode Choices for Sales
and Production Subsidiaries of Multinational
Corporations in the Manufacturing Industry
Seok Jin Ko
Graduate School of Business, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-916, Korea; [email protected]




Received: 17 April 2019; Accepted: 6 May 2019; Published: 29 July 2019


Abstract: Foreign market entry mode research has been a popular area of study. However, a clear
agreement between the usage of conventional constructs and their impact on a firm’s entry mode
choice has not yet been found. This paper focuses on how, depending on the type of subsidiary that is
established, multinational corporations (MNCs) in the manufacturing industry use different foreign
market entry strategies. Previous research either treated types of subsidiaries synonymously or
investigated them separately. However, due to the changing competitive landscape and disaggregation
of value chain activities into separate subsidiaries, I find it necessary to compare how these entry
mode choices differ depending on the activity each subsidiary is responsible for. My analysis finds
that MNCs in the manufacturing industry are more likely to use joint ventures rather than wholly
owned modes of entry for their production subsidiaries in comparison to their sales subsidiaries.
I further explore how the international experience of the MNC strengthens this effect. This research
utilizes a sample of 201 listed Korean manufacturing firms and 833 foreign market entry mode choices
into 49 countries.

Keywords: entry mode; foreign direct investment; manufacturing firms; multinational corporations;
subsidiary type; internationalization; Korea

1. Introduction
Research on entry modes into foreign markets has been carried out extensively due to the
lasting decisions and significant impacts these choices have on consequent firm performance and firm
sustainability [1–4]. Although entry mode research has been carried out in depth through a variety of
perspectives and theories such as transaction cost theory [5,6], the eclectic paradigm [7,8] and cultural
distance [9], scholars have maintained the need for more entry mode research [10]. This is because
the results acquired from previous studies provide no explicit agreement regarding the effect certain
variables have on entry mode decisions into foreign markets [11]. In addition to this, scholars in the
field of international business have stated that the question of how firms should enter foreign markets
is one of the most central questions to be answered for internationalization [12].
When trying to answer the question of how firms should enter foreign markets, scholars seem to be
broadly separated into two streams of research [3]. While one group of scholars has allocated contracts,
joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries along a continuum of increasing control, commitment
and risk [13,14], another group of scholars have found entry mode choices to be based on how firms
want to compensate their contributors of business or input providers [15–17]. This latter stream of
research suggests that firms tend to establish joint ventures with a local partner when the required
resource for foreign entry is difficult to purchase in the market. Therefore, when these resources are
difficult to transact, the resource holder is paid ex-post from the profit accrued by the venture. This
study builds on this latter stream of research to examine how the different characteristics and input

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089; doi:10.3390/su11154089 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 2 of 18

needs between sales and production subsidiaries within multinational corporations (MNCs) in the
manufacturing sector can impact their foreign entry mode decisions.
Although previous literature has accounted for the differences in these types of subsidiaries
and how these subsidiaries differ in their location choices or sequence of foreign entry when
internationalizing [18], studies comparing the differences between these subsidiaries in their foreign
entry mode decisions have been less apparent [19,20]. The Uppsala model has explained that firms
are more likely to establish sales subsidiaries before production subsidiaries when internationalizing
because they aim to steadily increase their commitment or investments [18,21,22]. As the international
business landscape has changed and developed, so have the roles and competencies of MNC
subsidiaries [23]. Rugman, Verbeke & Yuan (2011) [23] categorized Porter’s (1985) [24] well-known
classification of value chain activities into four broader groups which included innovation, production,
sales and administration. In concurrence with new global trends, scholars have suggested that instead
of viewing value chain activities in collective terms we should account for the disparities that are
apparent across them [23,25]. These new trends such as technological advancements and globalization
have led to the breakdown and separation of value chain activities, whereby some MNCs have begun
to carry out each activity in separate subsidiaries or locations [23,26–28]. Therefore, although activities
such as production and sales were once viewed to be closely related to each other, they are now able to
function and be established independently from each other [23]. In sequence with this view, I believe a
more detailed investigation of the foreign entry mode decisions pursued by MNCs for their different
types of subsidiaries will provide meaningful insights within the field of international business.
While differences regarding foreign entry mode decisions between the manufacturing and
service industry have been investigated [29], this research paper places emphasis on the differences
that are inherent between the types of subsidiaries that exist within the manufacturing industry.
Specifically, it focuses on how MNCs in the manufacturing industry employs different foreign market
entry strategies depending on whether they are establishing a sales subsidiary or a production
subsidiary. Previous research on foreign entry modes seems to have investigated this issue separately,
as they seemed to have focused on one activity in the value chain at a time [19]. For instance, early
research from entry mode scholars concentrated on the manufacturing industry and their production
activities [30], while marketing scholars focused on the comparison between sales subsidiaries and
local distributors [31]. This paper aims to investigate the distinct characteristics and roles sales and
production subsidiaries hold within manufacturing MNCs to predict foreign entry mode choices as a
result of their different input requirements. In particular, I argue that this difference arises from the
fact that sales subsidiaries require more human inputs while production subsidiaries require more
capital inputs. I also examine how the international experience of the manufacturing MNCs impacts
these differences.
Overall, the research setting utilizes listed MNCs in the manufacturing industry from Korea and
their foreign market entry mode choices with regard to the type of subsidiary that is being established.
I focus in particular on sales and production subsidiaries. I believe using the context of Korean
manufacturing MNCs is ideal for several reasons. First, in the past few decades, Korean manufacturing
companies have transformed and grown at a rapid pace to become strong competitors at a global
level [32]. Some examples of highly reputable Korean MNCs in the manufacturing industry that have
achieved a high status worldwide include Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motors, LG electronics and
Kia Motors [32,33]. I also believe that Korean MNCs in the manufacturing industry provides a sufficient
level of variety regarding the number of countries where foreign direct investments were pursued.
The final sample is comprised of 833 FDIs into 49 countries by 201 listed MNCs in the manufacturing
industry from Korea, of which 425 production subsidiaries were established and 408 sales subsidiaries
were established. In addition to this, the MNCs in this sample had an even allocation of production
and sales subsidiaries, whereby the MNCs had an average of two production subsidiaries and two
sales subsidiaries each. This provided an ideal context to test my theories. Although a comprehensive
list of individual mode structures for internationalization has been found to exist, I followed a high
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 3 of 18

number of studies which concentrated on the choice between wholly owned subsidiaries (WOSs) and
joint ventures (JVs) [3]. Furthermore, a review by Shen, Puig & Paul, (2017) on entry mode research
has found that most of the research on entry mode decisions focused on the choices of firms from
developed countries [34]. Therefore, as research utilizing the Korean context is limited and Korean
MNCs in the manufacturing industry have become significant players in the global context, I believe
further investigation and focus on the Korean context is needed.
My theory and supportive empirical findings on the differing foreign entry mode strategies
pursued by manufacturing MNCs for their production and sales subsidiaries provide important
contributions. My arguments on the relationship between different subsidiary types and foreign
entry mode choices display how their different functions can influence manufacturing MNCs to
carry out differing foreign entry mode decisions when internationalizing. This is due to the differing
emphasis they place on certain inputs when choosing to operate abroad. The detailed investigation into
production and sales subsidiaries extends previous literature on foreign modes of entry which primarily
focused on one activity in the value chain at a time [19]. The empirical analysis and results indicate that
manufacturing MNCs are more likely to use joint ventures rather than wholly owned modes of entry
for their production subsidiaries in comparison to their sales subsidiaries. Furthermore, the results
indicate that the international experience of MNCs moderates the relationship between subsidiary
types and foreign market entry mode decisions. Therefore, this study extends the significance of
examining not just the type of industry an MNC is in but the types of subsidiaries that exist within
an industry and MNC, as this can lead to distinct input needs which can further contribute to their
resulting foreign entry mode decisions.
This study also provides important implications for managers and policymakers. FDIs have
been found to positively affect the sustainable development of host countries [35]. Therefore,
by understanding the different modes of entry firms prefer when conducting FDIs, policymakers
will be able to create better regulations that could help the economic sustainability of their countries.
In particular, the government should also acknowledge the different types of roles or functions foreign
subsidiaries will carry out when established. In addition to this, FDIs are seen as a form of sustainable
growth for firms. This is because it has been viewed that firms expand to international markets to
improve their performance and thereby improve their sustainability [36]. Therefore, learning how
firms internationalize by examining the modes of entry firms employ could also help managers with
important decisions regarding FDIs which could further aid firm growth.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Manufacturing MNCs’ Entry Mode Choice by Subsidiary Type

A wide number of studies on foreign market entry mode have focused on both the manufacturing
industry [37,38] and service industry [39]. While these studies have provided relative support that the
primary theories explaining entry mode choices can be applied to both manufacturing and service
industries [29], differences regarding foreign entry mode choices between the two industries have
been noted [6]. These disparities stem from the fact that firms in different industries place a differing
amount of importance to certain variables [29]. For instance, firms in the manufacturing industry can
be considered to be more capital intensive, since they need to invest in plants and equipment. On the
other hand, firms in the service industry can be seen to require less financial investment when entering
into foreign markets as they are more people-intensive and require lower amounts of investment in
plants and equipment [29].
The notion of different subsidiary types can be fairly similar to the different industries in that sales
subsidiaries can also be seen to be more dependent on human capital and production subsidiaries
on capital investments. Internationalization studies have accounted for the differences in types of
subsidiaries as they have found some firms to follow the strategy of gradually increasing their levels of
risk and commitment to foreign countries, making them more likely to establish sales subsidiaries
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 4 of 18

before production subsidiaries [18,40]. Furthermore, it has been found that subsidiaries in MNCs
hold unique roles and classifications, with different resources being allocated to the various types
of subsidiaries [41,42]. Although MNC subsidiaries were once seen to carry out several value chain
activities bundled together [42], recent trends have allowed for the specialization and separation of
activities [23,26,43,44]. The specialization and separation of activities in subsidiaries have also allowed
for individual activities to be conducted separately [27,28]. While different scholars have categorized
value chain activities based on various criteria, I focus on two of the four activity categories set forth
by Rugman, Verbeke & Yuan (2011) [23]; production activities which include inbound logistics such as
operations and sales activities which include outbound logistics such as marketing, sales and services.
Therefore, as value chain activities have been disaggregated [23,25,45], subsidiaries in charge of
certain activities have been seen to hold unique and different roles from each other. In this regard, MNCs
could prefer different foreign entry modes for subsidiaries in charge of particular value chain activities
due to the unique roles and functions they are responsible for. Consequently, as sales subsidiaries are
in charge of more downstream activities [23], they would require higher levels of local knowledge [46].
The knowledge sales subsidiaries require to carry out key activities such as marketing, sales and
services can be seen to be more location-bound in comparison to the competencies that are needed by
production subsidiaries [46,47]. As this knowledge is seen to be location bound, the advantages and
competencies need to be developed at the host country and it is difficult to transfer these skills to new
markets [48]. Furthermore, firms have been known to use market research companies to acquire data
on customers to conduct sales [49]. Also, to obtain customers, it is important for firms to recognize who
their customers are and what their needs are which is why local knowledge is essential [49]. Therefore,
I believe that much of the knowledge and competencies sales subsidiaries will need to succeed can be
obtained through the hiring of local talent.
On the other hand, production subsidiaries require high fixed costs due to the high level of
investment that is needed to set up production processes and to develop knowledge to carry out their
roles [46]. As production subsidiaries are in charge of manufacturing products, they may require
certain assets such as land and facilities which can be challenging to obtain. In addition to this, firms
can be hesitant in investing considerable amounts of resources when entering a foreign market due to
the risk of failure and high levels of uncertainty [50]. Therefore, it can be argued that manufacturing
MNCs may perceive higher levels of risk and uncertainty for their production subsidiaries due to
heavy capital investment that is needed to set up production. Furthermore, I believe firms would
want to share the burden of this investment with local partners due to the high levels of risk and
uncertainty involved. Through this perspective, it can also be argued that sales subsidiaries can
more easily obtain the necessary resources they require to be competent in comparison to production
subsidiaries. This is because I believe it might be more difficult to procure the lands and facilities that
production subsidiaries need in contrast to hiring local talent which is what I believe sales subsidiaries
may require. Therefore, as joint ventures are typically preferred when assets are difficult to obtain
and wholly owned subsidiaries are preferred when assets are easier to obtain [51], I predict that
manufacturing MNCs will be more prone to using joint ventures for their production subsidiaries in
comparison to sales subsidiaries. The arguments above lead to the following hypothesis regarding
foreign market entry mode choices for manufacturing MNCs with regard to their sales subsidiaries
and production subsidiaries.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Manufacturing MNCs are more likely to use joint ventures rather than wholly owned
modes of entry for production subsidiaries in comparison to sales subsidiaries.

2.2. Moderating Role of International Experience

Previous literature and empirical studies have found international experience to affect a firm’s
foreign market entry mode decisions. These studies have argued that levels of experience are important
for internationalization and foreign market entry mode decisions because lack of knowledge may
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 5 of 18

contribute to higher levels of uncertainty and costs [52]. Studies have found firms to evade higher
equity modes of entry such as wholly owned subsidiaries into countries whereby they faced higher
levels of uncertainty [38]. This is because the uncertainty and risks involved could lead to higher levels
of cost associated with entering the country [53]. Therefore, as experience could help firms acquire
knowledge and reduce levels of uncertainty, this could also reduce the levels of reliance firms would
hold on their local partners, which would lead to higher equity modes of entry [54,55].
However, I believe international experience will moderate the likelihood of using joint ventures
differently depending on whether the subsidiary is a production subsidiary or sales subsidiary. I argued
previously that much of the knowledge and competencies sales subsidiaries would need to succeed can
be acquired through the hiring of local talent as they require high amounts of local knowledge. I also
argue that higher levels of international experience will further reduce the levels of uncertainty or lack
of knowledge these subsidiaries may have and therefore diminish their need for local partners [56].
Consequently, I argue that international experience will strengthen the likelihood of manufacturing
MNCs using wholly owned subsidiary modes of entry for sales subsidiaries.
I also previously argued that manufacturing MNCs might prefer using joint venture forms of entry
for their production subsidiary. I further argue that international experience may strengthen this effect
as higher levels of experience will also increase the levels of knowledge the firm acquires and could
make it easier to monitor or coordinate with their local partners [56]. Therefore, the issues that firms
may have had because of the cultural differences that were inherent with their local partners [6] may be
less of a problem. In addition to this, I also argued that the characteristics of a production subsidiary
might require them to acquire certain assets such as land and facilities which could be challenging to
obtain in foreign markets. However, international experience may also enable manufacturing MNCs
to find local partners with the resources they need more efficiently. Therefore, I argue that as the level
of international experience of the MNCs increases, this will strengthen the likelihood of them using
joint ventures rather than wholly owned modes of entry for production subsidiaries in comparison to
sales subsidiaries.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). International experience will strengthen the likelihood that manufacturing MNCs will
use joint ventures rather than wholly owned modes of entry for production subsidiaries in comparison to
sales subsidiaries.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data

My sample consists of publicly listed Korean MNCs in the manufacturing industry and their
foreign subsidiaries. Data on the foreign subsidiaries was obtained from a survey conducted by the
Korea Trade Promotion Corporation (KOTRA) in the year 2016. The survey which is titled the “Overseas
Korean Business Directory” provides comprehensive information on the overseas subsidiaries of
Korean MNCs including information on subsidiary types, entry modes, host country locations and the
establishment years of foreign operations.
From the original data, I was able to identify 1395 foreign subsidiaries of publicly listed Korean
MNCs that were in the form of FDIs. These Korean MNCs were listed on the Korea Composite Stock
Price Index (KOSPI). For the purpose of this study, I excluded subsidiaries that belonged to parent
firms in the financial or service sector. Therefore, only subsidiaries of parent firms that belonged to
the manufacturing sector were kept. Parent firms from the manufacturing industry were identified
according to the Korean Standard Industry Classification code. At the end of this process, only 912
foreign subsidiaries remained. I also dropped subsidiaries that were missing information (such as entry
years, subsidiary types and foreign entry modes) as well as subsidiaries that belonged to parent firms
that did not close their accounts in December. The final sample totaled up to 833 foreign subsidiaries
distributed over 49 countries worldwide.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 6 of 18

Financial data of the parent firms were retrieved from KISVALUE, which is a widely used data
source for studying publicly listed Korean firms. In addition to this, economic data of the host countries
the subsidiaries were established in was obtained from The World Bank website.
The final sample consists of 201 manufacturing MNCs from Korea with an average of four foreign
subsidiaries each. Furthermore, the sample consists of 425 production affiliates and 408 sales affiliates.
A detailed summary of the statistics of the manufacturing MNCs at the parent firm level can be found
in Table 1 while the distribution of the countries and types of foreign subsidiaries can be found in
Table 2.
The statistics of the parent firms in Table 1 displayed an even allocation of production and
sales subsidiaries, whereby the MNCs had an average of two production subsidiaries and two sales
subsidiaries each. This even distribution of sales and production subsidiaries provided a good context
to test my theory on subsidiary types and entry mode decisions. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2,
there was a high variation in the number of host countries FDIs were carried out into.
Additional analysis on the country distribution reveals that 292 FDIs were made in advanced
economies (35% of total FDIs) (I followed IMF’s country groupings based on level of economic
development [57]). Among these, 20.5% of total FDIs were comprised of production subsidiaries while
79.5% were sales subsidiaries. In contrast, 541 FDIs were made in middle income and developing
economies (65% of total FDIs). Among these, 67.5% were comprised of production subsidiaries while
32.5% were sales subsidiaries. According to this sample, more production subsidiaries were located in
middle income and developing economies presumably to retain lower production input costs.

Table 1. Parent Firm Level Summary Statistics.

Number of Parent Firms 201

Average Size (No. of Employees) 3197.279
Average International Experience 17.572
Firm Age 36.786
Research and Development
1.199
Intensity
Advertisement Intensity 0.746
Average Number of FDIs per
4.144
Parent Firm
Production Subsidiaries 2.114
Sales Subsidiaries 2.030

Table 2. Country Level Summary Statistics.

Production Subsidiaries Sales Subsidiaries Total

Region No. Countries FDI JV JV (%) FDI JV JV (%) FDIs JV JV (%)
Asia China 152 31 20.395 75 5 6.667 227 36 15.859
India 36 7 19.444 14 1 7.143 50 8 16.000
Indonesia 13 1 7.692 4 2 50.000 17 3 17.647
Japan 4 1 25.000 40 2 5.000 44 3 6.818
Malaysia 8 2 25.000 4 1 25.000 12 3 25.000
Singapore 1 0 0.000 12 1 8.333 13 1 7.692
Thailand 13 4 30.769 7 5 71.429 20 9 45.000
Vietnam 64 13 20.313 12 3 25.000 76 16 21.053
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 7 of 18

Table 2. Cont.

Production Subsidiaries Sales Subsidiaries Total

Region No. Countries FDI JV JV (%) FDI JV JV (%) FDIs JV JV (%)
Europe Austria 1 0 0.000 4 0 0.000 5 0 0.000
Czech Republic 7 0 0.000 5 0 0.000 12 0 0.000
France 1 0 0.000 4 0 0.000 5 0 0.000
Germany 1 0 0.000 17 0 0.000 18 0 0.000
Hungary 2 0 0.000 5 1 20.000 7 1 14.286
Italy 1 1 100.000 7 1 14.286 8 2 25.000
Netherlands 0 0 0.000 12 0 0.000 12 0 0.000
Poland 11 1 9.091 8 0 0.000 19 1 5.263
Romania 4 2 50.000 2 0 0.000 6 2 33.333
Russian
9 0 0.000 12 3 25.000 21 3 14.286
Federation
Slovak Republic 9 0 0.000 1 0 0.000 10 0 0.000
Spain 0 0 0.000 5 0 0.000 5 0 0.000
Sweden 0 0 0.000 4 0 0.000 4 0 0.000
United Kingdom 0 0 0.000 14 0 0.000 14 0 0.000
Latin America Brazil 15 1 6.667 5 1 20.000 20 2 10.000
Chile 1 0 0.000 3 0 0.000 4 0 0.000
Guatemala 3 0 0.000 1 0 0.000 4 0 0.000
Mexico 14 1 7.143 5 0 0.000 19 1 5.263
Middle East Turkey 14 5 35.714 4 0 0.000 18 5 27.778
North America Canada 0 0 0.000 8 0 0.000 8 0 0.000
United States 33 1 3.030 69 3 4.348 102 4 3.922
Oceania Australia 0 0 0.000 10 0 0.000 10 0 0.000
New Zealand 2 0 0.000 5 0 0.000 7 0 0.000
Other countries 1 6 3 50.000 30 3 10.000 36 6 16.667
Summary 49 countries 425 74 17.412 408 32 7.843 833 106 12.725
1Other countries include Greece, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Slovenia, Israel, Finland, Morocco,
Bulgaria, Argentina, Iran, Colombia, Croatia, Panama, Peru, Philippines and Bangladesh.

3.2. Dependent Variable

Entry mode. Following previous literature on entry mode, I coded my dependent variable entry
mode as a binary variable depicting joint ventures as (1) and wholly owned subsidiaries as (0).
I used the entry mode information given in the Overseas Korean Business Directory to code the
dependent variable.

3.3. Independent Variables

Subsidiary type. To test the first hypothesis, I further coded my main independent variable as
a binary variable. I categorized production subsidiaries as (1) and sales subsidiaries as (0). Service
subsidiaries have also been included as sales subsidiaries as their function is an auxiliary one to sales
subsidiaries in general.
International experience. To test the second hypothesis, I counted the number of years each parent
MNC had operated their business internationally. This allowed me to measure the international
experience of the parent firms. By following the approach of [45], the variable was measured by
subtracting the year when a parent firm’s first FDI had occurred from 2016 which is the observation year.

3.4. Control Variables

Various conventional control variables at the subsidiary level, parent firm level and country level
that could impact foreign entry mode choices were also included.
The subsidiary level controls included subsidiary age. I follow the notion of Hennart (1991) [55],
whereby the established mode of entry may change as the subsidiaries age and a joint venture could
dissolve or be acquired by a partner. Since the data set is cross-sectional, there is a possibility that
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 8 of 18

some of the subsidiaries may have initially been a joint venture but fully acquired by Korean parents.
Subsidiary age was included in the investigation to correct for such possible changes in entry modes.
Subsidiary age was measured as the number of years that had passed since the establishment of the
subsidiaries in their host countries.
The parent firm level controls were obtained and coded from the financial database KIS-VALUE
which is the Korean version of the U.S. COMPUSTAT financial database. I first controlled for firm age
as a proxy for the general experience of parent firms in their business.
Parent firm’s R&D intensity and advertising intensity were included in order to control for the level
of proprietary assets of the parent firms. Prior literature on entry mode suggests that firms with higher
levels of proprietary assets are likely to choose high control modes of entry to avoid local partner’s
opportunistic behaviors such as free-riding or dissemination of technology [38]. R&D intensity and
advertisement intensity were measured by calculating their ratio over total sales of the firms (for
example, advertisement spending of 2016/total sales of 2016).
In addition, firm size (total number of employees in natural log) was measured to control for the
parent firm’s size effects. Past literature suggests that larger firms prefer higher control modes of entry
since they have abundant resources that can be utilized in new markets and they can avoid risks that
can emerge from making partnerships with local partners [39].
Lastly, several host country level controls such as GDP growth (3-year average), GDP (in natural
log), geographic distance (in natural log) in addition to cultural distance were included.
GDP growth was included in the models to control for market potentials [58]. For instance, in
fast-growing markets, high growth in demand would provide firms with high potentials for growth.
Firms would more likely enter with full modes of entry to appropriate full returns from investments
rather than share them with local partners. In a similar vein, host country GDP has been included in
the models to control for host country market size [59].
Geographic distance and cultural distance are also controlled in the models to control for the perceived
uncertainty of investing firms. Higher levels of physical distance from the home market and large
cultural differences may provide uncertainty for managers. Therefore, larger geographic distances
may generate information asymmetry between local partners and firms and as a result, make it more
challenging for firms to monitor their local partners [60]. Moreover, with higher cultural differences,
Korean firms may find difficult to understand their local partners’ actions in the host country due to
unfamiliar cultural environments [61]. Hence, they may prefer wholly owned mode of entry when
there are higher levels of geographic and cultural distances. Geographic distance was measured as
the physical distance between the capital of Korea (Seoul) and the capital cities of the host countries.
The log of the geographic distance values was calculated due to its dispersed distribution. For the
measure of cultural distance, Kogut & Singh (1998)’s [62] standardized measure was used, which is
an aggregation of the standardized distances of each of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. A detailed
description of the variables can be found in Table 3.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 9 of 18

Table 3. Definition of Main Variables.

Variable Definition
Entry mode 1 for joint venture mode of entry; 0 for wholly owned mode of entry
Subsidiary type 1 for production subsidiary; 0 for sales subsidiary
International experience Number of years since a parent firm’s first establishment of foreign operations
Subsidiary age Number of years since a subsidiary’s establishment
Firm age Number of years since a parent firm’s founding
Advertising intensity Advertisement spending divided by total sales
R&D intensity Research and development spending divided by total sales
Firm size Log of total number of employees
GDP growth 3 year averaged GDP growth
GDP Log of GDP
GDP per capita Log of GDP per capita
Geographic distance Log of distance between host country and home country capitals
Cultural distance Kogut &Singh (1988) cultural distance measurement

4. Data Analysis
To test the hypotheses, I utilized the logistic regression model to analyze the cross-sectional data.
I applied the following model to examine the effect of the independent variables on the probability of a
firm choosing joint venture mode of entry:

P(Y = 1) = 1/[1 + exp−(a+xi b) ] (1)

where Y is the dependent variable, x is the vector of independent variables of the logit regression, b is
the vector of coefficients of the logit regression and a is the intercept of logit regression.
I followed the majority of empirical studies that used cross-sectional designs due to the difficulty
in acquiring data that would allow for longitudinal studies [3,63,64].

5. Results
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis for the main variables.
The correlation analysis suggests that the variables were within reasonable levels of correlation with
the highest correlation being −0.66 (between GDP growth rate and geographic distance). In addition
to this variance inflation factors (VIFs) were also checked for and they were all found to have values
that were less than 5. This suggested that multicollinearity was not an issue in the empirical models.
The mean of the dependent variable entry mode was 0.127 which shows that most of the foreign direct
investments in the sample were conducted through wholly owned subsidiaries. However, this was not
a problem when running the logistics regression since the models had a good fit with the data in the
sample. The main independent variable subsidiary type was evenly distributed with a mean of 0.510.
Lastly, the mean of the moderating variable international experience variable was 28.18 which show
that the average international experience of the MNCs in the sample was 28 years.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 10 of 18

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(1) Entry mode 0.127 0.333 1
(2) Subsidiary type 0.51 0.5 0.144 ** 1
(3) International experience 28.18 14.63 −0.003 −0.165 ** 1
(4) Subsidiary age 14.727 8.959 −0.022 −0.150 ** 0.374 ** 1
(5) Parent firm age 36.282 19.859 0.001 0.025 0.133 ** 0.065 1
(6) Parent R&D intensity 1.872 2.872 −0.018 −0.188 ** 0.556 ** 0.116 ** 0.039 1
(7) Parent advertising intensity 0.969 1.439 −0.047 −0.227 ** 0.065 0.116 ** −0.306 ** 0.087 * 1
(8) Parent firm size 8.409 1.976 0.042 −0.221 ** 0.650 ** 0.147 ** 0.070 * 0.417 ** 0.152 ** 1
(9) GDP growth rate 4.24 2.624 0.109 ** 0.354 ** −0.190 ** −0.123 ** −0.036 −0.128 ** −0.127 ** −0.233 ** 1
(10) GDP 28.449 1.7 −0.055 −0.05 −0.105 ** 0.133 ** −0.019 −0.127 ** 0.033 −0.116 ** 0.153 ** 1
(11) Geographic distance 8.219 1.021 −0.106 ** −0.197 ** 0.176 ** 0.006 0.032 0.169 ** 0.021 0.254 ** −0.660 ** −0.381 ** 1
(12) Cultural distance 1.955 1.016 −0.129 ** −0.231 ** −0.044 0.136 ** 0.034 0.002 0.058 −0.046 −0.046 0.424 ** 0.028
Source: Author’s calculation. ***: p < 0.01; **: p < 0.05; *: p < 0.1.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 11 of 18

Analysis of Manufacturing MNCs’ Entry Mode Choice by Subsidiary Type

The models in my analysis presented in Table 5 provide information about the direction of the
influence my independent variables have on a Korean MNC’s choice of entry mode. Positive coefficients
indicate that the independent variable increases the probability of a firm choosing a joint venture mode
as its entry strategy. On the other hand, negative coefficients indicate that the dependent variable
decreases the probability of a firm choosing a joint venture mode of entry. Model 1 shows the effects
of the control variables and how they impact entry mode decisions while Model 4 contains the full
model excluding the interaction term. Models 2 and 5 display the results which pertain to my research
objectives. Model 2 tests hypothesis 1 and Model 5 presents the result for hypothesis 2 whereby the
interaction between subsidiary type and parent firm’s international experience is formally tested.
The models overall have a high explanatory power with valid chi-square values. They also show
a high classification rate over-predicting wholly owned modes of entry. This is partly due to the large
portion of wholly owned modes of entry in comparison to joint ventures modes of entry in the sample.
However, all the models that present the essential results of my research objectives, excluding models
3 and 4, satisfy the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. This proves that my models have a good fit with the data
in the sample.
The results strongly supported the theoretical perspectives of this study. Model 1 tested for all the
control variables at the subsidiary, parent and host country level and how they impacted entry mode
decisions. Some of the control variables such as parent firm size, geographic distance and cultural distance
had a significant impact on entry mode decisions. Larger parent firms were associated with joint venture
modes of entry and firms were less likely to use joint venture modes of entry into countries that were
geographically further away. Both of these variables were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Cultural
distance was also negatively related to a firm’s choice of joint venture mode of entry (p < 0.01). This
suggests that when firms are entering culturally distant countries, they tend to establish wholly owned
entities and avoid partnering with local firms. All three variables were significant in all models in this
study. Lastly, at a 10% significance level, host country GDP levels were negatively related to joint venture
occurrences. Firms were less likely to establish joint ventures in countries with large market sizes.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, manufacturing MNCs were more likely to use joint ventures rather than
wholly owned forms of entry for their production subsidiaries in comparison to their sales subsidiaries.
The results for the main hypothesis were strongly supported and statistically significant with a positive
coefficient as shown in Table 5 Model 2 (p < 0.01). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was strongly supported.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, international experience positively moderated the relationship
between production subsidiaries and their likelihood of using joint ventures as opposed to wholly
owned modes of entry. This result was also strongly supported and statistically significant (p < 0.01).
The data analysis was interesting as it showed that international experience did not directly affect the
entry mode decisions of subsidiaries. However, the results became statistically significant when the
international experience of the MNC at the parent firm level was interacted with the type of subsidiary
in the manufacturing MNC to impact the foreign entry mode choice that was pursued.
To obtain a better understanding of the findings, I plotted an interaction graph for the second
hypothesis. To compare the different probabilities of joint venture selections for each subsidiary type,
I calculated the adjusted predictions (predictive margins) for sales and production subsidiaries at
different international experience year values with other variables set to their means. These calculations
were then plotted in Figure 1 to show the different probability conjectures for each subsidiary type.
Figure 1 illustrates that there is a moderating effect between the international experiences at the parent
firm level and the relationship between subsidiary types and foreign entry modes choices. The figure
illustrates that an increase in international experience by year units increases the probability for joint
venture selection for production subsidiaries whereas the probability decreases for sales subsidiaries.
Figure 1 shows a clear difference in preferences for entry mode choices between production subsidiaries
and sales subsidiaries. Figure 1 also clearly shows how their preference is affected by a parent firm’s
international experiences.
 (3.513) (3.504) (3.519) (3.510) (3.553)
N 833 833 833 833 833
Model Chi-square 39.375 *** 47.074 *** 40.334 *** 48.357 *** 58.716 ***
−2 Log likelihood 595.582 587.884 594.624 586.601 576.242
Percentage correct 87.3 87.3 87.3 87.3 87.4
R square 0.087 0.103 0.089 0.106 0.128
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 12 of 18
Source: Author’s calculation. ***: p < 0.01; **: p < 0.05; *: p < 0.1. Standard error in parentheses.

Figure 1. The moderating role of international experience on the relationship between subsidiary type
Figure 1. The moderating role of international experience on the relationship between subsidiary
and entry mode decision.
type and entry mode decision.

6. Discussion
Table 5. Logistic regressions for entry mode.
The current study investigated how MNCs in the manufacturing industry used differing
foreignVariables
entry mode strategies Model
for production
(1) and sale
Model (2) subsidiaries
Model (3) and Model
I came(4)acrossModel
some (5)
interesting findings. The results strongly supported the first hypothesis which suggested that MNCs
Main independent variables
in the manufacturing industry were more likely to use joint ventures rather than wholly owned
Subsidiary type 0.690 *** 0.706 *** −0.776
modes of entry for production subsidiaries in comparison
(0.254) to sales subsidiaries. I (0.255)
theorized that these
(0.520)
different modes
International of entry stemmed from the distinct needs of the −0.012
experience two subsidiary −0.014
types. I argued that ***
−0.047
sales subsidiaries were more dependent on local knowledge which could be provided
(0.012) (0.012) by the hiring
(0.017)
of local employees, whereas production subsidiaries were more in need of local partners to assist
Interaction term
them with their capital costs and retaining production inputs. Furthermore, the results provided
Subsidiary type
support for the second hypothesis whereby as the international experience of the MNCs increased, 0.052 ***
International Experience
this strengthened the likelihood of them using joint ventures rather than wholly owned modes (0.017)
of
entry for their production subsidiaries in comparison to sales subsidiaries. I argued that as parent
Subsidiary
firms level controls
gained more international experience, they would learn to monitor or coordinate their partners
Subsidiary age 0.0003 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.011
better and as a consequence the cultural differences that could have contributed to the difficulty of
(0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014) (0.015)
Parent firm level controls
Firm age −0.002 −0.002 −0.001 −0.001 −0.002
(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
R&D intensity −0.046 −0.033 −0.022 −0.006 0.000
(0.044) (0.044) (0.049) (0.048) (0.048)
Advertising intensity −0.123 −0.092 −0.122 −0.091 −0.116
(0.095) (0.095) (0.094) (0.094) (0.094)
Firm size 0.162 ** 0.187 *** 0.202 *** 0.236 *** 0.229 ***
(0.064) (0.066) (0.076) (0.079) (0.078)
Host country level controls
GDP growth 0.058 0.015 0.058 0.013 0.011
(0.056) (0.058) (0.056) (0.058) (0.058)
GDP −0.159 * −0.159 * −0.163 * −0.164 * −0.182 **
(0.088) (0.087) (0.088) (0.087) (0.087)
Geographic Distance −0.494 *** −0.515 *** −0.500 *** −0.522 *** −0.535 ***
(0.179) (0.181) (0.179) (0.181) (0.182)
Cultural Distance −0.421 *** −0.344 ** −0.429 *** −0.351 ** −0.351 **
(0.152) (0.151) (0.152) (0.151) (0.152)
Constant 5.897 * 5.469 5.924 * 5.497 7.116 **
(3.513) (3.504) (3.519) (3.510) (3.553)
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 13 of 18

Table 5. Cont.

Variables Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5)
N 833 833 833 833 833
Model Chi-square 39.375 *** 47.074 *** 40.334 *** 48.357 *** 58.716 ***
−2 Log likelihood 595.582 587.884 594.624 586.601 576.242
Percentage correct 87.3 87.3 87.3 87.3 87.4
R square 0.087 0.103 0.089 0.106 0.128
Source: Author’s calculation. ***: p < 0.01; **: p < 0.05; *: p < 0.1. Standard error in parentheses.

6. Discussion
The current study investigated how MNCs in the manufacturing industry used differing foreign
entry mode strategies for production and sale subsidiaries and I came across some interesting findings.
The results strongly supported the first hypothesis which suggested that MNCs in the manufacturing
industry were more likely to use joint ventures rather than wholly owned modes of entry for production
subsidiaries in comparison to sales subsidiaries. I theorized that these different modes of entry stemmed
from the distinct needs of the two subsidiary types. I argued that sales subsidiaries were more dependent
on local knowledge which could be provided by the hiring of local employees, whereas production
subsidiaries were more in need of local partners to assist them with their capital costs and retaining
production inputs. Furthermore, the results provided support for the second hypothesis whereby as
the international experience of the MNCs increased, this strengthened the likelihood of them using joint
ventures rather than wholly owned modes of entry for their production subsidiaries in comparison to
sales subsidiaries. I argued that as parent firms gained more international experience, they would
learn to monitor or coordinate their partners better and as a consequence the cultural differences that
could have contributed to the difficulty of operating joint ventures for their production subsidiaries
may no longer be an issue. In contrast, I argued that more international experience would reduce the
level of uncertainty for sales subsidiaries and strengthen the likelihood for them using wholly owned
modes of entry.
These findings have several implications and contributions to previous literature. I believe the
comparison between production and sales subsidiaries helps bridge the gap between theory and
practice. The detailed investigation into the comparison between production and sales subsidiaries
was an extension of previous foreign entry mode studies which generally focused on one activity in the
value chain at a time, whether it was production, R&D or sales [19]. Although MNC subsidiaries were
once seen to conduct a collection of activities, many of them are now seen to specialize or focus on
one activity [23,26–28]. This study contributes to this changing competitive landscape whereby value
chain activities have been disaggregated [18]. This has led to the need for further investigation into
the different types of subsidiaries, allowing me to contribute to the developing internationalization
literature whereby subsidiaries in MNCs are becoming the unit of analysis [65]. In addition to this, the
majority of entry mode research has been conducted to examine the manufacturing or production issues
of internationalization [19]. Therefore, I believe this study investigates how there could be alternative
factors or circumstances which could impact existing arguments. For instance, joint ventures have
been found to help firms obtain local knowledge through their local partners [66] and having a local
partner has been found to help firms overcome their liability of foreignness which includes the different
costs incurred by a firm when operating businesses abroad [67]. However, this study suggests that
the means of acquiring local knowledge may differ depending on the value chain functions foreign
subsidiaries are responsible for. Unlike previous studies that argued joint ventures were an efficient
way to obtain local knowledge through local partners, I argued that the local knowledge required
by sales subsidiaries could be obtained through the hiring of local employees. Therefore, taking into
account the different types of subsidiaries that exist, wholly owned modes of entry could perhaps be a
more efficient mode of entry for sales subsidiaries. It was also interesting to note how international
experience moderated the likelihood of using joint ventures differently depending on the subsidiary
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 14 of 18

type. For Korean MNCs in the manufacturing industry, it became more likely for them to use joint
ventures for production subsidiaries as they gained more international experience. This was in contrast
to previous studies that found firms to use higher equity modes of entry as experience led to lower
levels of uncertainty [54,55]. However, Korean MNCs followed this logic for their sales subsidiaries
when international experience increased due to the reduced need for local partners.
It is important for managers and practitioners to consider these factors as past research has found
that the performance of subsidiaries or the sustainability of subsidiaries can be affected by whether
or not they have used the correct form of entry when internationalizing [1,68,69]. Therefore, when
managers are deciding to move or establish their operations abroad, they should first consider what
type of subsidiary they are planning to have or what function their subsidiary will mostly be in charge
of. The difference between whether the subsidiary is a production subsidiary or sales subsidiary could
impact the efficiency of their entry mode decision. Moreover, methods of obtaining the knowledge
required to succeed may differ depending on whether a sales subsidiary or production subsidiary is
being established. I believe this investigation and results using empirical data from Korean MNCs in the
manufacturing industry will also be helpful for managers and practitioners as Korean manufacturing
companies have become globally competitive in the past few decades. Examining their modes of entry
could enlighten managers from other countries on the different strategies their firms should enact
depending on the type of subsidiary they want to establish abroad. Furthermore, the context of Korean
MNCs provided an ideal sample and context to compare the difference between subsidiary types due
to the even allocation of production and sales subsidiaries.
In addition to this, policymakers should take these factors into account when creating new
regulations for their country’s economic sustainability as FDIs have been found to have positive
effects on economic growth [35]. In order to create reasonable regulations to generate an attractive
environment for businesses and FDI inflows, policymakers need to understand how foreign companies
will want to establish their operations. In addition to concentrating on the types of industries or
characteristics of firms, the government should also acknowledge the different roles or functions these
subsidiaries will carry out when established. For instance, as this study predicts MNCs may use
wholly owned modes of entry for their sales subsidiaries because they can obtain local knowledge
through the hiring of local employees, governments could consider creating attractive environments
for sales subsidiaries as their inward FDIs and their establishments could lead to more jobs for the local
population. This is an important factor to consider as past literature has found that FDI has positive
effects on growth when interacted with human capital [70]. Furthermore, as production subsidiaries
are predicted to use joint venture forms of entry and seek local partners, this will also be a good avenue
for the economic sustainability of a country. This is because production subsidiaries may transfer their
technological know-how or capital to their local partners. Therefore, governments should also create
favorable regulations which would attract production subsidiaries to help their local firms.

7. Conclusions
While there has been a plethora of entry mode studies [3,63,64], the present study proposed
subsidiary types to affect the entry mode decisions of manufacturing MNCs in foreign countries.
Although studies on entry mode choices have investigated the entry mode decisions of manufacturing
firms, service firms and the comparison of these two industries [3,29], less attention has been paid to a
comparison between the differences posed by subsidiaries within the same industry [19]. This study
examines the difference between sales and production subsidiaries and how they relied on different
inputs for operations. Although I argued that it was more critical for sales subsidiaries to rely on local
talent, I also argued that production subsidiaries were required to rely more on local partners due
to the higher levels of investment they may need. I investigated how depending on these different
types of subsidiaries there could be alternative factors or circumstances which could impact existing
arguments on entry mode research.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 15 of 18

Past research has suggested that firms with localization objectives were more likely to form
joint ventures with local partners to gain access to local culture and knowledge. According to past
logic, sales subsidiaries which require higher levels of local knowledge should be entering foreign
markets in the form of joint ventures. On the other hand, production subsidiaries which are situated
upstream in the value chain need to be better coordinated and controlled with their headquarters and
therefore should more likely be established through wholly owned modes of entry. My investigation
provided some opposing views and results to this theory, suggesting that sales subsidiaries preferred
wholly owned modes of entry while production subsidiaries preferred joint venture modes. These
interesting results can be interpreted with the fact that local knowledge for sales subsidiaries could be
obtained through the hiring of local talent, mitigating the need for local partners. However, setting up
production subsidiaries through the recruitment of local talent may be more complicated as the level
of risk and investment required is much higher. In this aspect, production subsidiaries may rely more
on local partners to acquire institutional knowledge which would be difficult to acquire by merely
employing local talent. Issues that require local institutional knowledge such as labor issues and
host country government relationships could also be responded to proficiently with a local partner’s
assistance. Local partners could also help investing firms adapt to the host country’s institutional
environments [1,71]. My results are in support of this argument and provide evidence that production
subsidiaries are more likely to seek local partners.
Therefore, the differences in entry modes that have previously been recorded as industry
effects [29] could be due to the different characteristics of the subsidiaries comprised in each
industry. In my additional analysis I found that although MNCs in the manufacturing industry
held a substantial variation between production and sales subsidiaries, MNCs in the service industry
consisted predominantly of sales subsidiaries. This is not surprising given that service industries are
in charge of intangible products whereby there is no physical production of their products [72].
Although I believe this paper contributes to the entry mode stream of research, it has several
limitations. First, this study only investigates the sales and production subsidiaries of MNCs in the
manufacturing industry. However, research and development subsidiaries could be another interesting
type of subsidiary to examine as innovation is another important value chain activity. Second, this study
pertains to MNCs in the manufacturing industry from Korea. Therefore, only entry mode decisions by
one country were examined. Although there is much to learn from Korean MNCs in the manufacturing
industry as many of them have become strong performers in the global market over the past few
decades, it could be interesting to investigate whether entry mode choices differed depending on
whether parent firms were from emerging countries or developed countries and the regions they
were internationalizing to. It would be interesting to investigate if further differences in entry modes
existed depending on the region firms were internationalizing to as the supplementary analysis on the
country distribution of FDIs revealed 35% of total investments were made in advanced economies
while 65% of total investments were made in middle income or developing economies. In addition to
this, an extension of this study could be to investigate the survival, sustainability or performance of
these subsidiaries depending on whether they used the more efficient mode of entry. Furthermore,
although this study only investigated two groups which were sales and production subsidiaries, these
groups could also be segmented even further. For example, some production subsidiaries may be
responsible for massive production whereas other production subsidiaries may be responsible for
niche productions which would require more knowledge or skills [20].
Therefore, investigating how the entry mode decisions depended on the types of subsidiaries
in MNCs may open a gateway for subsequent research. The empirical analysis provided strong
support that within MNCs in the manufacturing industry, production subsidiaries were found to
prefer joint ventures in comparison to sales subsidiaries. Furthermore, although this study showed
how international experience strengthened this effect, alternative and more important influences could
exist. Policymakers and managers should take into account how MNCs use different modes of entry
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 16 of 18

for their production and sales subsidiaries, as this could affect and help improve the sustainability of
both firms and economies.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Brouthers, K.D. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance.
J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2002, 33, 203–221. [CrossRef]
2. Brouthers, K.D.; Nakos, G. SME entry mode choice and performance: A transaction cost perspective.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 2004, 28, 229–247. [CrossRef]
3. Brouthers, K.D.; Hennart, J.F. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research.
J. Manag. 2007, 33, 395–425. [CrossRef]
4. Martin, X. Solving theoretical and empirical conundrums in international strategy research: Linking foreign
entry mode choices and performance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2013, 44, 28–41. [CrossRef]
5. Brouthers, K.D. A retrospective on: Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode
choice and performance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2013, 44, 14–22. [CrossRef]
6. Zhao, H.; Luo, Y.; Suh, T. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice:
A meta-analytical review. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 524–544. [CrossRef]
7. Canabal, A.; White, G.O., III. Entry mode research: Past and future. Int. Bus. Rev. 2008, 17, 267–284.
[CrossRef]
8. Agarwal, S.; Ramaswami, S.N. Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and
internalization factors. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1992, 23, 1–27. [CrossRef]
9. Tihanyi, L.; Griffith, D.A.; Russell, C.J. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international
diversification and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2005, 36, 270–283. [CrossRef]
10. Hennart, J.F.; Slangen, A.H. Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A commentary on Shaver. J. Int.
Bus. Stud. 2015, 46, 114–122. [CrossRef]
11. Morschett, D.; Schramm-Klein, H.; Swoboda, B. Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we
really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice? J. Int. Manag. 2010, 16, 60–77. [CrossRef]
12. Shaver, J.M. Do we really need more entry mode studies? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2013, 44, 23–27. [CrossRef]
13. Erramilli, M.K.; Rao, C. Choice of foreign market entry modes by service firms: Role of market knowledge.
Manag. Int. Rev. 1990, 30, 135–150.
14. Hill, C.W.; Hwang, P.; Kim, W.C. An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strat. Manag. J.
1990, 11, 117–128. [CrossRef]
15. Hennart, J.F. The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. In The Nature of the Transnational Firm,
2nd ed.; Pitelis, C., Sugden, R., Eds.; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 1991; pp. 72–118. ISBN 0415167876.
16. Hennart, J.F. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strat. Manag. J. 1988, 9, 361–374. [CrossRef]
17. Hennart, J.F.; Sheng, H.H.; Pimenta, G. Local complementary inputs as drivers of entry mode choices: The
case of US investments in Brazil. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015, 24, 466–475. [CrossRef]
18. Johanson, J.; Vahlne, J.E. The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development
and increasing foreign market commitments. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1977, 8, 23–32. [CrossRef]
19. Petersen, B.; Benito, G.R.G.; Welch, L.S.; Asmussen, C.G. Mode Configuration Diversity: A New Perspective
on Foreign Entry Mode Choice. In Thought Leadership in Advancing International Business Research; Lewin, A.Y.,
Cavusgil, S.T., Hult, G.T.M., Griffith, D.A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 57–78.
ISBN 978-0-230-59423-4.
20. Benito, G.R.; Petersen, B.; Welch, L.S. Mode combinations and international operations. Manag. Int. Rev.
2011, 51, 803–820. [CrossRef]
21. Welch, L.S.; Luostarinen, R. Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. J. Gen. Manag. 1988, 14, 34–55.
[CrossRef]
22. Tsai, H.T.; Eisingerich, A.B. Internationalization strategies of emerging markets firms. Calif. Manag. Rev.
2010, 53, 114–135. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 17 of 18

23. Rugman, A.; Verbeke, A.; Yuan, W. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal’s classification of national
subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 253–277. [CrossRef]
24. Porter, M.E. Technology and competitive advantage. J. Bus. Strategy 1985, 5, 60–78. [CrossRef]
25. Pyndt, J.; Pedersen, T. Managing Global Offshoring Strategies: A Case Approach; Copenhagen Business School
Press: Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2006; 208p, ISBN 8763001691.
26. Kedia, B.L.; Mukherjee, D. Understanding offshoring: A research framework based on disintegration,
location and externalization advantages. J. World Bus. 2009, 44, 250–261. [CrossRef]
27. Lewin, A.Y.; Massini, S.; Peeters, C. Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race for
talent. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 901–925. [CrossRef]
28. Martínez-Noya, A.; García-Canal, E. Technological capabilities and the decision to outsource/outsource
offshore R&D services. Int. Bus. Rev. 2011, 20, 264–277. [CrossRef]
29. Brouthers, K.D.; Brouthers, L.E. Why service and manufacturing entry mode choices differ: The influence of
transaction cost factors, risk and trust. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1179–1204. [CrossRef]
30. Dunning, J.H. The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. Int. J.
Econ. Bus. 2001, 8, 173–190. [CrossRef]
31. Anderson, E.; Coughlan, A.T. International market entry and expansion via independent or integrated
channels of distribution. J. Mark. 1987, 51, 71–82. [CrossRef]
32. Hemmert, M. The Evolution of Tiger Management: Korean Companies in Global Competition; Routledge: London,
UK, 2017.
33. Fortune Global 500. Available online: http://fortune.com/global500/list/ (accessed on 2 May 2019).
34. Shen, Z.; Puig, F.; Paul, J. Foreign market entry mode research: A review and research agenda. Int. Trade J.
2017, 31, 429–456. [CrossRef]
35. Almfraji, M.A.; Almsafir, M.K. Foreign direct investment and economic growth literature review from 1994
to 2012. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 129, 206–213. [CrossRef]
36. Brouthers, K.D.; Nakos, G.; Dimitratos, P. SME entrepreneurial orientation, international performance and
the moderating role of strategic alliances. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 1161–1187. [CrossRef]
37. Delios, A.; Henisz, W.I. Japanese firms’ investment strategies in emerging economies. Acad. Manag. J. 2000,
43, 305–323. [CrossRef]
38. Gatignon, H.; Anderson, E. The multinational corporation’s degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An
empirical test of a transaction cost explanation. JL Econ. Org. 1988, 4, 305–336.
39. Erramilli, M.K.; Rao, C.P. Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis
approach. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 19–38. [CrossRef]
40. Johanson, J.; Wiedersheim-Paul, F. The internationalization of the firm-four Swedish cases. In The
Internationalization of the Firm, 2nd ed.; Buckley, P.J., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Thomson Business Press: London,
UK, 1999; pp. 27–42. ISBN 9781861524010.
41. Cantwell, J.; Mudambi, R. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strat. Manag. J. 2005, 26,
1109–1128. [CrossRef]
42. Ghoshal, S.; Bartlett, C. Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1986, 64, 87–94.
43. Mudambi, R. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. J. Econ. Geogr. 2008, 8,
699–725. [CrossRef]
44. Jensen, P.D.; Pedersen, T. The economic geography of offshoring: The fit between activities and local context.
J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 352–372. [CrossRef]
45. Asmussen, C.G.; Pedersen, T.; Petersen, B. How do we capture “Global Specialization” when measuring
firms’ degree of globalization? Manag. Int. Rev. 2007, 47, 791–813. [CrossRef]
46. Rugman, A.M.; Verbeke, A. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises.
J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 3–18. [CrossRef]
47. Rugman, A.M.; Verbeke, A. A new perspective on the regional and global strategies of multinational services
firms. Manag. Int. Rev. 2008, 48, 397–411. [CrossRef]
48. Bouquet, C.; Birkinshaw, J. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate
headquarters. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 577–601. [CrossRef]
49. Hennart, J.F. Emerging market multinationals and the theory of the multinational enterprise. Glob. Strategy J.
2012, 2, 168–187. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4089 18 of 18

50. Gielens, K.; Dekimpe, M.G. The entry strategy of retail firms into transition economies. J. Mark. 2007, 71,
196–212. [CrossRef]
51. Hennart, J.F. Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and
local assets. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 1432–1454. [CrossRef]
52. Eriksson, K.; Johanson, J.; Majkgård, A.; Sharma, D.D. Experiential Knowledge and Cost in the
Internationalization Process. In Knowledge, Networks and Power; Forsgren, M., Holm, U., Johanson, J., Eds.;
Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 41–63. ISBN 978-1-137-50882-9.
53. Hennart, J.F.; Larimo, J. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national
origin affect ownership decisions? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1998, 29, 515–538. [CrossRef]
54. Brouthers, K.D.; Brouthers, L.E. Explaining the national cultural distance paradox. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2001, 32,
177–189. [CrossRef]
55. Hennart, J.F. The transaction costs theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in
the United States. Manag. Sci. 1991, 37, 483–497. [CrossRef]
56. Powell, K.S.; Lim, E. Motive meets experience: Cultural distance, motive, related experience and foreign
subsidiary ownership structure. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 92, 81–92. [CrossRef]
57. Fiscal Monitor: Debt-Use It Wisely; International Monetary Fund (IMF): Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–111.
ISBN 978-1-47553-705-5.
58. Boellis, A.; Mariotti, S.; Minichilli, A.; Piscitello, L. Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice
in foreign markets. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2016, 47, 929–950. [CrossRef]
59. Meyer, K.E.; Estrin, S.; Bhaumik, S.K.; Peng, M.W. Institutions, resources and entry strategies in emerging
economies. Strat. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 61–80. [CrossRef]
60. Malhotra, S.; Gaur, A.S. Spatial geography and control in foreign acquisitions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2014, 45,
191–210. [CrossRef]
61. Shenkar, O. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of
cultural differences. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2001, 32, 519–535. [CrossRef]
62. Kogut, B.; Singh, H. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1988, 19,
411–432. [CrossRef]
63. Datta, D.K.; Hemnann, P.; Rasheed, A.A. Choice of foreign market entry modes: Critical review and future
directions. In Managing Transnational Firms: Resources, Market Entry and Strategic Alliances, 1st ed.; Hitt, M.A.,
Cheng, J.L.C., Eds.; Jai Press: Stamford, CT, USA, 2002; Volume 14, pp. 85–153. ISBN 0762308753.
64. Benito, G.R.; Petersen, B.; Welch, L.S. Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes.
J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 1455–1470. [CrossRef]
65. Rugman, A.M.; Verbeke, A.; Nguyen, Q.T. Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Manag.
Int. Rev. 2011, 51, 755–786. [CrossRef]
66. Lu, J.W.; Beamish, P.W. Partnering strategies and performance of SMEs’ international joint ventures.
J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 461–486. [CrossRef]
67. Denk, N.; Kaufmann, L.; Roesch, J.F. Liabilities of foreignness revisited: A review of contemporary studies
and recommendations for future research. J. Int. Manag. 2012, 18, 322–334. [CrossRef]
68. Shaver, J.M. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice
affect FDI survival? Manag. Sci. 1998, 44, 571–585. [CrossRef]
69. Zhao, H.; Ma, J.; Yang, J. 30 years of research on entry mode and performance relationship: A meta-analytical
review. Manag. Int. Rev. 2017, 57, 653–682. [CrossRef]
70. Borensztein, E.; De Gregorio, J.; Lee, J.W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?
J. Int. Econ. 1998, 45, 115–135. [CrossRef]
71. Yiu, D.; Makino, S. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional
perspective. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 667–683. [CrossRef]
72. Bowen, J.; Ford, R.C. Managing service organizations: Does having a “thing” make a difference? J. Manag.
2002, 28, 447–469. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).