|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Home | News
|
 Printable Version |
News
GLOBE Management ReviewCall for Submissions
Academics and practitioners are invited to submit proposals on an aspect of globalization and localization for publication in the GLOBE Management Review (http://gmr.miis.edu), an online, peer-reviewed journal published by the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
The GLOBE Management Review serves as a preeminent source of knowledge on adapting business strategies for global markets. Submissions are encouraged to address a number of issues facing the global business community. Such topics include, but are not limited to:
• What are the major organizational challenges of globalization as a business process?
• What are the best ways to culturally customize to foreign markets while not losing the benefits of global branding?
• How can companies engineer strategies that are inherently “glocal”, reaping the benefits of global scale and local customization?
• How should companies adjust to new trends and effects of off-shoring?
• What resources are available to help companies manage globalization?
Submissions must be appropriate for multiple audiences, which may include international business managers, academicians, and localization industry practitioners. Below, we have copied an editorial introduction to be included in the first issue. Please review this essay and provide manuscripts that fit within the given scope. GMR articles are written in the style of Harvard Business Review or California Management Review.
Authors may submit manuscripts by sending them as Word attachments to David Richins (david.richins@miis.edu ). For more detailed submission guidelines, please visit http://gmr.miis.edu (click About).
For further information on the Globe Center, visit our website at http://globe.miis.edu .
Introduction and Call for Submissions
By David Richins
Language is a curious thing. If one were to ask ten different people to describe the meaning of the words “globalization” or “localization”, they would likely provide ten different responses. Do the words refer to politics, sociology, business, or linguistics? The ambiguity in semantics creates challenges as we attempt to define the focus and the scope of this publication. But it is precisely this same ambiguity that creates the need that prompted the creation of the GLOBE MANAGEMENT REVIEW. Different audiences define the terminology differently and have different perceptions of the issues. We want to bring everyone together.
GMR is a publication about the business of globalization and the globalization of business. A dialogue about globalization in business invariably includes a discussion of Ted Levitt’s article in the Harvard Business Review (May-June 1983), entitled, “The Globalization of Markets.” This article has influenced business tremendously and led many companies to aspire to a global ideal. The word “global” here refers to worldwide consistency – selling the same products everywhere, instead of having subsidiaries develop and sell products customized to individual locales. At a time when the world was still feeling the stagnation and distance of the Cold War, the concept of an entire globe united with common products must have been thrilling. Said Levitt, “The world’s needs and desires have been irrevocably homogenized…Companies must learn to operate as if the world were one large market – ignoring superficial regional and national differences.”
The idea of global standardization certainly lured managers with the opportunity for huge economies of scale, but it seemed noble as well. It offered the possibility that high quality products could be available and affordable to all, even those in less developed countries. Levitt also painted a hopeful picture of individuals and families in foreign countries who, while still living vastly different customs, used the same modern products found domestically. It aspired to a feeling of unity like that of the Olympic games. But over time, these concepts of helping the poor and promoting global unity were clouded by the controversies and conflicts that globalization itself led to.
Since 1983, globalization has developed in ways not foreseen. The commonalities among markets are still counterbalanced by significant differences; activists call for the re-localization of the global economy, and the claim may be made that regionalization is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Evidence suggests that although the effects of globalization are widely felt and acknowledged, the processes of globalization are far from complete. Trade is not completely free, rich economies remain rich, and for the most part, the poor remain poor. Neither has the concept of global marketing come to full fruition. Notable failures of global strategy have caused some to question the underlying assumptions of the theory. Many have, in hindsight, pointed out flaws in Levitt’s argument.
For the business world, the events of 9/11 in many respects represent the backlash against globalization. Terrorists, in ironic symbolism, used technology to destroy the emblems of world trade. The “Jihad versus McWorld” phenomenon, appropriately coined by Benjamin Barber, characterizes the clash of homogeneity and incongruity that is gripping the modern world.
What does this all mean for business today? Many companies face an uphill battle as they attempt to do business internationally. U.S. companies especially can fall into complacency due to the large domestic market. In attempting to reap global economies of scale, many companies have made serious cultural blunders with tremendous costs. For example, Quaker Oats lost millions of dollars and was forced to withdraw its Snapple beverage product line in Japan because the product launch overlooked that the glass bottles were almost twice the size that Japanese consumers prefer, the product was too sweet for the Japanese palate, and the Japanese were not comfortable with the sediment that characteristically collects at the bottom of the bottle (K. Loncar, World Trade, June 1997, p.92).
Marketing professionals and academicians have long debated whether standardization or adaptation is the best approach to global marketing. Numerous studies and articles have addressed the issue, but the problem can never be resolved, because the optimal strategy seems to depend on the circumstances. The GLOBE MANAGEMENT REVIEW asserts an editorial belief that “glocal” strategies can be engineered, and that a mix-and-match approach is possible and desirable (meaning that certain aspects of company strategy can be standardized and other aspects can be adapted). In other words, companies can and should pursue globalization and localization simultaneously.
As the Internet age emerged in the 1990s, localization began to take on new meaning. As Levitt predicted, technology pushed the world toward a converging commonality, but it was not manufacturing technology but rather information technology. And information technology uses language, which is inherently laden with cultural nuances. As software companies took their products global, they discovered many technical challenges associated with translating the content and documentation into other languages. Translation agencies gradually picked up this work, and eventually an entire industry developed providing so-called “globalization”, “internationalization” and “localization” services.
Even though industry revenues are in the billions of dollars, language service providers have failed to capture the attention of the upper managers at client companies. This is due to the way the industry developed – as a lower-level, outsourced process. Language service providers ironically speak a different language than business managers; they speak in terms of technical processes and linguistic concerns. While there are a small handful of large localization service companies (over $50 million), there are thousands of small companies offering commoditized translation/localization service. This “localization” can be beneficial in terms of ROI, but it is not presented as a strategic solution to companies’ global challenges, because the service centers around language and not the marketing content itself. Translation alone cannot make a campaign effective in foreign markets. The problem is exacerbated by the fact than many companies turn to localization service providers without much research or planning regarding foreign markets. Globalization becomes a process of following fads. It is a lose-lose situation when clients want a quick win in international markets without a strategy, and service providers are not equipped to consult them on how to develop a better strategy.
But what if that could change? What if companies could begin to look strategically at globalization and how best to adapt to global markets? What if localization service providers could speak the language of business managers and present their solutions within the context of global strategy? Perhaps companies would achieve greater success, and perhaps globalization could then become the positive influence that Levitt imagined. It feels like a process of evangelizing, and it may seem overly optimistic to hope that entrenched thinking could be changed, but this publication has been established for that very purpose. To effect substantial change requires work on multiple fronts. But all work requires a foundation of theory and knowledge. GMR is designed to be such a knowledge base.
