-

20132

2012 11

2013 02

()
()
()
()
()


1. , (2012)
: ,
, 13(3), 67-98.
2. , (2012) ,
, 15(3), 225-250.
3. , (2012)
, , 20, 7-32.
*
.




(Emerging Market) . 500
480 .
.


.
.
,
,
.

.

,
.
2000 2012
SSCI Top . 5 (Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Harvard Business
Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Strategic Management
Journal), 55 .

. (Institutional
Theory), (Transactional Cost Theory),

(Resource-based View).
, , ,
.
(competency gap)

.
.



.
. .

(System Dynamics)
(CLD, Causal Loop Diagram) .

.
8 .



.


.


. Wayism

 .
(Wayism)

.

,
CSR/CSV
.



. .

.


.
.

,


. (delay effect)
.
.
: , , , ,
, ,

. 1

1. 1
2. 2
3. 4

. 7

1. 7
2. 8
2.1. 8
2.2. 10
2.3. 11
3. 12

. 13

1. 13
1.1. 13
1.2. 14
2. 18
2.1. 18
2.2. 21

. 24

1. 24
2. 26
2.1. 26
(1) 26
i

(2) 32
(3) 35
2.2. 38
(1) Wayism 38
(2) 46
2.3.
50
3. : 55

. - 57

1. 57
2. 60
2.1. 60
2.2. 62
2.3. 65
(1) 65
(2) (Tata Motors) 67
2.4. 70
(1) 70
(2) 75
2.5. 80
(1) 80
(2) 81
(3) 83
(4) 84

ii

2.6. 86
(1) 86
(2) 88
3. 91
4. 93

. 96

1. 96
1.1. 96
1.2. 98
2. 99

100

iii


< 1> 2
< 2> 4
< 3> 7
< 4> Keyword 12
< 5> 19
< 6> 23
< 7> () 25
< 8> 28
< 9> 40
< 10> 52
< 11> 58
< 12> 58
< 13> 64
< 14> () 72
< 15> 74
< 16> 78
< 17> , () 88
< 18> , , 90
< 19> 95

iv


< 1> 6
< 2> 15
< 3> 17
< 4> 20
< 5> 31
< 6> 34
< 7> 36
< 8> Wayism 39
< 9> 48
< 10> 51
< 11> 56
< 12> 61
< 13> 61
< 14> 2010, 2011 87
< 15> 89
< 16> 92

.
1.

(Kumar, 2011; Johnes, 2012). 2002 2009
9 (Tse, 2010) ,
(emerging market)
.
, 2011 2020 2%
7%
(Ichii, 2012), 2030 GNP GNP
50% (Tse, 2010).
.
. 500 480
(Tse, 2010).
(Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, &
Peng, 2005).
52% , GDP
60%
. 15
15 6
(Economist, 2012).


.

 (Kumar, 2011; Jones, 2012).

.

(homogeneous)

. (heterogeneity)
(Wright et al., 2005)
(Wright et al., 2005)
.

2.
< 1>

?
?
?

(heterogeneity) (Wright et al., 2005)

,

.

,
.
(Wright et al., 2005).

, (2012a; 2012c) .

.
, , , , , ,
, CSR(Corporate Social Responsibility, ),

.

,
.

.
.

3.

< 2>

1
2
3
4
5
6

.
.
.
.
.
.

6 . 1 ,
. 2 .

. , , .
,
. 3 .

.
,
. 4
.

. 4 1
< 7> . 4 2
3 . 3

, ,

< 8>, < 9>, < 10> . 3

, ,
, Wayism ,
, 6 . 5
.
() 100%
.
5 ,
, , .

. 6 .
, .
.

< 1>

.
1.

Hoskisson et al.(2000)

.
,
(institutional theory),

(resource-based view),

(transactional cost theory). Hoskisson et al.(2000)
2000 2012 < 3> .
(Gao et al., 2010) (Peng, 2003),
(social network theory)(Khanna and Rivin, 2001) ,
.

< 3>

(2000 2012)
tuahene Gima(2001), ahmoo & u in(2005),

Li & A

d Rf
Peng et al.(2005), Khanna et al.(2005), Meyer et al.(2009),

Feinberg & Gupta(2009), Henisz & Zelner(2010),

Mair et al.(2012), Simanis(2012)
Hoskisson et al.(2000), Peng & Luo(2000), Dharwadlkar &
Branders(2000), Park & Luo(2001), Gong (2001), Douma et
al.(2005), McCarthy & Puffer(2008), Bhaumik et al.(2010),
Li & Atuahene-Gima(2002), Spencer(2008), Kale et
al.(2009), Malik & Kotabe(2009), Kumar(2009), Black &

Morrison(2010), Zhang et al.(2010), Chang et al.(2012),

Tomson(2012)

2.

2.1. (IT, Institutional Theory)

.

(rules of the game) (Hoskisson et al., 2000:252). ,



.
(network-based growth strategy) (Peng & Heath, 1996).
(Khanna & Rivkin, 2001; Li &
Atuahene-Gima, 2002), (Peredo & Chrisman,
2006) (Peng, Lee, Wang, 2005;
Peter, Uhlenbruck, & Eden, 2005; Mahmood & Rufin, 2005; Bhaumik et al.,
2010). (institution) (macro)
(micro)
.
Mair, Mart, & Ventresca(2012)

.
, .
(marketization), (privatization), (heavily regulated)
(Shenkar & von Glinow, 1994)
(Hoskisson et al., 2000) .
(Peter et al., 2005; Puffer &

McCarthy, 2011),
(Li, & Atuahene-Gima, 2001; Lu & Ma, 2008; Gao et al., 2010;
Tse, 2010) .
(Institutional Void)
(Henisz & Zelner, 2010).
.
Khanna Palepu 15
(Khanna & Palepu, 1997;1999; Khanna, Palepu &
Sinha, 2005).
, ,
(Khanna & Palepu, 1997; Miller et al., 2009).

(Simanis, 2012)

(problem-sensing tools) (Mair et al., 2012). ,

(Lu & Ma,
2008),
(Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2001).


.

.
(Hoskisson et al., 2000).

(TCT, Transactional Cost Theory)

2.2.

(Hoskisson et al., 2000). (Hoskisson,
Hill, & Kim, 1993) , (Kogut, 1988)
.
.
(Peng & Health, 1996).
,
.
(Banga, 2007).
(agency theory) (nexus of contracts)
Hoskisson, et at.(2000)
.

(asymmetric information)
(monitoring cost) .
,
(Kogut, 1998; Hoskisson et al., 2000).

.

(Wright et al., 2005).

10

2.3.

RBV
. RBV
(context)
(Hoskisson et al., 2000)

(Leonard-Barton, 1992).

(Black & Morrison, 2010; Ichii,
Hattori, & Michael, 2012).
RBV
(Conner & Prahalad, 1996).
(spillover effect)
(Mahmood & Rufin, 2005; Peredo & Chrisman,
2006; Banga, 2007; Zhang, Li, Li, & Zhou, 2010)
RBV , , , ,
(Peng, 2001).
(liability of foreignness)
(Barney, Wright, &
Ketchen, 2001; Meyer, 2001; Peng, 2001; Miller & Eden, 2006; Lu & Ma,
2008)
(Chang, Gong, & Peng, 2012).
Peng(2001) (SOEs,
state-owned enterprises)
RBV

11

3.

< 4>
. , ,
,
.

.
.


.
.
.

< 4> Keyword

w d
, ,
, ,
, ,
Key or

< 4> keyword

.

12

1.

1.1.

S
1961 MIT Jay
Forrester [ (Industrial Dynamics)]
.
.
( ystem Dynamics)

,

.
. (Forrester, 1961: ; , , ,
1999 )

( , 1999; Forrester, 1993; Richardson, 1991;

Richmond, 1993; Senge & Sterman, 1992).
.
.
.
.

.
.

13


.
.

1.2.

()
(dynamic feedback perspective)


(framework)(
, , , 1999; , 2007; , , 2009) .
,
,
. (time-based)
(feedback) , (holistic) (, 2008).

. , ()
,
( ,
2009).

.
,
.
, , (, 2008).
< 2>
.

14



. , ,
,
,
.

- , , ,
, - (, 2007;
Meadows, 1980:31-36)

< 2>
, 1999:51, )

, (feedback) (closed
loop thinking, circular feedback system)
(circular

15

w -way causation or feedback)

( , 1999:36; , 2007).
.
.

.
.
.
, (endogenous point of view)
,

(, 2007; Richardson, 1982:1-2; Meadows, 1980:30-31)
, (holistic) (operational thinking)

.
.
( ,
1999:38; , 2007) .
. <
1> .
causation, t o

< 1>

, .

.
.
.

16

 .

.
.
(High
Performance, 1994:30-31).

.
,

. < 3>

3>

<

, 1999:51, )

17

2.

CLD, Causal Loop Diagram)

2.1. (

2>
.
<

.
.
+, -
.
. (, +,
positive) (,-, negative) .
positive(+) negative(-) () ()
. A
B positive(+)
A B
positive(+, ) . A B
positive(+)
negative(-, ) .
< 5>
. ,
, , + -
, ,
(R, Reinforcing, , )
(B, Balacing, , , )
.

18

< 5>

A (A) B (B)
B (B)
- AA(A)
B
.

A (A) B (B)
B (B)
+ AA (A)
B
.

A B AB

A B
() .


.
(circle) +

(R, Reinforcing) .
.
(circle)

(B, Balancing) .

19


. (-) (-), 0
(+) . < 4> , ,
.
,
,
, .
, ,
, --
, --
.

< 4>

(, 2009). , ()
() . ,
() . .
(3 ) .

20

2.2.

+ -
,

,

. (causal map, cognitive map,
causal loop diagram, influence diagram, word-and-arrow diagram )
(mental model) ,
(diagram) .
, . (Richardson, 1997; Sterman
,

2000).

()

. ,
.

.
.
, .

3
. ,

. , ,
,

21


(, 2007).

.

.
.

.

.

( ) .
< 6> .

. SSCI Top
.

.

22

< 6>

1)


2)




2.
,



3.
,

+, *
4.
+(), -, / -()

0

BSC(Balanced Scorecard) ()
5.




.

6.
.

.
(. , (2009), )
1.

23

.
1.

2012 SSCI(Social Science Citation Index)

. SSCI
Top , Hoskisson et al.(2000)

2000 2012 .

emerging market, emerging countries, developing

countries , (Google Scholar)
. SSCI Top 1
. 1 1
2
.
, ,
.
.
4
5 , 55 .
Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Review, Harvard Business Review, Journal of International Business
Studies, Strategic Management Journal. ,
< 7> . <
8>, < 9>, < 10> .
1

24

< 7> ()
Journal of Strategic
Academy of Academy of Harvard International
Management Management Business Business Management
Journal
Review
Review
Journal
Studies

55

14

10

2000

Hoskisson et al.,
Aulakhetal,
Peng & Luo,
Khanna & Palepu

Dharwadkar &
Branders

2001

Li, &
Atuahene-Gima

2002

2003
2004

1
1

2005

2006

2007

17

Ghemawat

Meyer

Park & Luo

Khanna & Rivkin,
Li &
Atuahene-Gima

Gong
Davies & Walters
Henisz & Zelner,
Mahmood&Rufin,
Peng et al.,
Peter et al.
Miller & Eden

Khanna et al.

Peredo &
Chrisman

Douma et al.
Banga

Vaaler,
Lu & Ma,
Mesquita &
Lazzarini

2008

2009

7 Feinberg & Gupta

2010

2011

2012

Chang et al.,
Mair et al.,
Surroca et al.,

McCarthy &
Puffer,
Spencer

Swant

Ready et al.

Kanter,
Kumar,
Kale et al.
Black & Morrison,
DAndrea,
Marcotte &
Morrison,
Henisz & Zelner,
Tse
Johnson,
Kumar &
Puranam
Porter & Kramer
Ichii et al.,
Jones,
Simanis,
Thomson

25

Cuervo-Cazurra &
Genc

Miller et al.,
Malik & Kotabe

Bhaumik et al.,
Gao et al.,

Meyer et al.

Zhang et al.,

2.

2.1.

(1)

. ,
,
.
(Park & Luo, 2001)
.
.
,
(imitation)
(spillover effect)
(Mahmood & Rufin, 2005).


.

(Mahmood & Rufin, 2005) .
< 5> .
< 5> Fixes that fail
,
Shifting the Burden (Archetype) (Peter, 1990; ,
2004; , 2008).
(Ghemawat, 2001).
(Johnson, 2011),

26


(Vaaler, 2008).
(Peng & Luo, 2000).
R (Reinforcing
Loop) .
B (Balancing Loop)

27

< 8>

Reference
wd
Branders

Dhar a kar &

(2000)

Peng &

Luo

(2000)
Pakr &

Luo

(2001)

Ghema at
(2001)

McCarthy &
Puffer
(2008)

Sawant
(2012)

Khanna &

Rivkin

(2001)

(-) (-)

(+)
(+) ()(+) ()(-)
(-)
/// (+),
(-),
(+)
(+)

(Blat) (+) (+)

(+) (+)
(+)
(+)

28

M ,

T T,

, ,

( )

( )

)
Reference

(+) (+) (+)

(+) ()(+) (+)
(2006)
(+) (+)
Davies &
(+)
Walters
() (+)
(2004)
(+)
(+)
Li &
(+) (-)
Atuahene-Gima (-)
(2002)
(-)
(+)
Ready, et at. (-),
(CSR)(+)
(2008)
(+),
(+)
Malik & Kotabe (+)
(2009)
(+)
Pere o &

Chrisman

29

)
Reference

Li, &
Atuahene-Gima
(2001)

Mahmood &
Rufin
(2005)

Peng et al.
(2005)

Vaaler
(2008)

Johnson
(2011)

Mair et al.
(2012)

(+) (+)

(vested interest)(+)

(-) (+)

(+) (+)

(-) (+)
(+)
(-)

(-)

(+) (delay) (-)

() (+) (-)

() (+)

(-)

(+)

(+)

(, , ) (-)

30

< 5>

31

R
, B1
(unintended effect), B2
. Mahmood & Rufin(2005)
() ,

. ,
.
B2 (delay)
. , 1
,
, .
.
R
(Peng & Luo, 2000; Sawant, 2012)
,
B
.

(2)

(Khanna & Palepu, 1997; Miller, Lee, Chang, & Breton-Mille, 2009).
.


(Ready et al., 2008). ,

, ,

32

z Z

(Henis & eln, 2005; Peng et al., 2005).

(Dharwadkar & Branders, 2000)

(Khanna & Rivkin, 2001),
(Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2002)
.

. (Meyer,
2001; Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2002; Gao, Murray, Kotabe, & Lu, 2010). ,
, ,
(Mair et al., 2012)
.
.

.

(Peng et al., 2005).
(Li & Atuahene-Gima,
2002),
(Peter et al., 2005; Feinberg &
Gupta, 2009). (, 2006;
Meyer, 2001) (Li &
Atuahene-Gima, 2002)

(Mahmood & Rufin, 2005).

33

< 6>
.
.
,
.

(Henisz & Zelner, 2005; 2010; Miller et
al., 2009) .
Peng et al.(2005) < 6> .

B1, B2 .
(In the short run, the
importance of institutional relatedness is likely to increase, and the scope of
the firm is likely to increase.).

34

Rivkin, 2001; Li &

Atuahene-Gima, 2002).
(The higher the level of financial market development, the narrower the
scope of the firm)
(In the long run, the importance of institutional relatedness is likely to
decline, and the optimal scope of the firm is likely to contract). R1

. Lu & Ma (2008) Li &
Atuahene-Gima (2002) . , R2

. Peng et al.(2005), Dharwadkar &
Branders(2000), Khanna & Rivkin (2001), Li & Atuahene-Gima (2002)
. B1, B2

.
(Khanna &

(3)

McCarthy & Puffer(2008)

(relationship) .
(blat) (, guanxi)
(Park & Luo, 2001)
.
,
(Park & Luo, 2001; Peng
& Luo, 2000). ,
35

< 7>
(Sawant, 2012; Peng & Luo, 2000; McCarthy &
Putter, 2008) ,

(Davies & Walters, 2004) .
.
< 7> .
< 7>
.

(Park & Luo, 2001).
(blat, ) . McCarthy &
Puffer(2008)
. (Park
& Luo, 2001; Davies & Walters, 2004; Sawant, 2012) ,

36

 /
(Davies & Walters, 2004).

(Malik & Kotabe, 2009)
.
, .
< 4>
< 6>
( ) (
) .
5 .

.

.

() .

. ,
R1
R2
.
.

37

2.2.
(1) Wayism

500 141
35.2% .
2009 500 68
11.2% .
(Black & Morrison,
2010; Ichii, et al, 2012)
.
Wayism
(Black & Morrison, 2010). , , ,
Wayism . Wayism

.

(Kale, Singh, & Raman, 2009; Chang, Gong, & Peng, 2012).
Wayism
. ()
, .
. (Black & Morrison, 2010; Ichii, et al, 2012).
< 7> .
17

38

< 8> Wayism

39

< 9>

Reference
Gong
(2003)
Douma

et al.
(2006)
Kanter
(2009)
Hoskisson

et al.
(2000)

Spencer
(2008)

(+) (+)
( ) ,
Delay (-)

(+)
/ (-)

(+)

()
monitoring effect(+) (-) (-)
(-)
M&A (+)
,

M&A (+)

(+)
,

(+)

(+)
()

FDI

(+)

FDI

40

()

Reference

Black &
Morrison
(2010)

A d

D n rea

et al.

(2010)
hang

et al.

(2010)
Kumar &
Puranam
(2011)

(+) (+) Wayism (+)

Wayism (-)
(+) (+)
/
(-)

(-)
: , ,
(+)

(+)


FDI (+)

,
FDI (+)

FDI
(-) (+)
(+)

(+)() (+)

R&D
(+)
Wayism

41

()

Reference

Ichii et al.
(2012)
Thomson
(2012)

Chang et al.
(2012)

Meyer
(2001)

Peter et al.
(2005)
Khan et al.
(2005)

(+)

investment (+)

Upper class (-)

(+) MNC (+)

(+), (-)

(-), (-)
(, , )(+), (+)

(+),

Sharing identity (+)

(+)
(+) MNCs(+)
,
(-)

(-)
(-)

(-)


(+)

talent

42

()

Reference
Miller & Eden
(2006)

Gaur et al.
(2007)

Lu & Ma
(2008)

Vaaler
(2008)

Fein erg &

Gu ta
(2009)

Miller et al.
(2009)

(-)
(+)
(-)
(-)
(+)

JV(+)

(restricte , less o en market)

(+) (-)

() (+)

(+)
,
(+) (-)

(+) (-) (-)
(+)
(local density) ,
(+)

(-) (-)
( )

43

()

Reference

Meyer et al.,
(2009)
Tse
(2010)

z Zelner

Henis &

(2010)

Johnson
(2011)

Simanis
(2012)

Surroca et al.
(2012)

JV(-)
(,
)
JV(-)

Policy Risk MNC (-)

MNC (+)
Policy Risk (+)
CSR

CSR (+) Policy Risk(-)

(-)

(+)

(+)
Operating Cost(+)
BOP(Bottom of

(-) Operating Cost(-) Pyramid)

CSR(+)
MNC

CSR(-)
CSR

44

 (Shifting the burden) (Peter,

1990; , 2004; , 2008).
B1 . B1 R1
R2 R3 . R1

(Black & Morrison, 2010).

(Black & Morrison, 2010)
(Kanter, 2009).
(Kumar & Puranam, 2011)
.
BOP(Bottom of Pramidy, )
(Prahalad & Hammond, 2002; Ichii et al., 2012).
(Thomson, 2012)
(Mahmood &
Rufin, 2005; Banga, 2007).

.
M&A
(Banga, 2007; Spencer, 2008; Zhang et al., 2010),
(Gaur et al.,
2007), (Kumar & Puranam, 2011; Ichii, et al, 2012)
.

1, 3
. 1 .

45

(2)

(Gong, 2003;Kanter, 2009; Ichii et al., 2012).

.
,
.
(Simanis,
2012).


(Meyer,
2001; Li & Atuahene-Gima, 20502; Khan, Palepu & Sinha, 2005; Thomson,
2012). B1 .
< 5>, < 6>, < 7>
.

.
.

.
. ,
.


(Henisz &
Zeiner, 2010). Henisz & Zelner(2010) CSR(Corporate Social

46

Responsibility, ) . CSR

.
CSR
(cultural competence)
(DAndrea et al., 2010).
CSR
. CSV(Creating
Shared Value, ) .


. (Porter & Kramer, 1999; 2002; 2006; 2011, Prahalad & Hammond, 2002;
Brugmann & Prahalad, 2007). , Porter & Kramer(2006)
(Value Chain) (Diamond)
(Strategic CSR) CSR
(Societal Value)
(Economic Value) CSV (Porter & Kramer, 2011).
CSV
. CSV

.
CSV ,
CSR .

CSR CSV .

47

B1

R1
+

+
CSR, CSV

+
-

< 9>
R1
CSR, CSV (Porter & Kramer, 2006; 2011;
Henisz & Zelner, 2010). Porter & Kramer(2006; 2011)
, ,


. CSR
(Porter & Kramer, 2006)
(Shared value) (Porter & Kramer, 2011)
(cultural
competence) (DAndrea et al., 2010) .
BOP(Bottom of Pyramid)

CSR CSV
.
48

 CSR CSV
.
(Miller
& Eden, 2006; Gong, 2003; Thomson. 2012). R1
(DAndrea et al., 2010).

.
(Kumar &
Puranam, 2011) . < 9>

. < 9>

.
(Li &
Atuahene-Gima, 2002; Mahmood & Rufin, 2005; Peter et al., 2005; Meyer et

al., 2009; Thomson, 2012).

.
< 9> (Delay Effect)

B1 .
1 10 .
, CSR CSV
,

, < 6>


. < 7>

49


. CSR CSV

2.3.

(emerging giant) (Khanna & Pale u, 2006; Kumar, 2009;

Black &

Morrison, 2010).
.

(Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008).

(Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008)
.
.

.
M&A

(Jones, 2012). ,
(complementary
competencies) (Kumar, 2009).
M&A

.


50

 (Kale et al., 2009).

< 10>

51

< 10>
Reference
Johnes
(2012)

Bhaumik
et al.

(2010)
Kumar
(2009)
Kale

et al.
(2009)

(+) (+)

Natura( )

(-) FDI(+) ,
(-)

FDI(+) FDI(+)

(+)
M&A
,
(+)
M&A

M&A (+)

(+) (+)

(+) (+)
,
M&A { / /
( )
} (+)

52

()

Reference
Gao,

et al.
(2010)

Cuervo-Cazurra
& Genc
(2008)

Mesquita &
Lazzarini
(2008)

Banga
(2007)

/(+)
/(+)
/(+)
/(+)
EMNE(-)
EMNE(+)
EMNE(+)

(+)

SME / /(+)

()(+) (+)
FDI ()(+) (-)
(-)
FDI

53

FDI

< 10> (2008) .

, R2 R3

.
.

.
,
.



(Reinforcing)
. ,
.

(Black & Morrison, 2010).
.
(Ichii et al.,2012),
BOP .
(Prahalad, C. K. & Hammond, 2002),
(DAndrea et al, 2010).
.

.

54

3.

< 11>.
(, ,
) ( ),
(, )

.
,
,
.
,

(Delay)

.
.

.

,

.
,
.

.

55

+
+

R1

o r

R2

B2

+
-

R3

B1
+

CSR, CSV
+

< 11>
56

1.

.
(, 2006; Eisenhard, 1989).
(random sampling) (theoretical sampling)
.
,

(Eisenhardt, 1989),
. (, 2006:11 )
( )
.
, 2012
, 2004 IMF
, .
,
. 2004

.
, < 11> ,
, , (Kale, et al. 2009; Kumar,
2009). < 12>

.

57

< 11>
(; )
Spring Industries(;2005)
Godiva(;2007)

()

Novelis(;2007)

Citigroup Global Services(;2008)

St.AnneNackawicPulpMill(;2005)
Minacs Worldwide(;2006)
Tetley(;2000), Corus(;2007)
Carlton International(;2001)
Axon Group(;2008)
Mount Gordon(;2000)
Nifty(;2003)
OZ Minerals(;2009)

Coteminas()
lker Group()
Hindalco()
Tata Group()
Hindalco()
Tata Group()
VIP Industries()
HCL()
Hindalco()
Minmetals()

Kale, et al.(2009)
Kale, et al.(2009)
Kumar(2009)
Kumar(2009)
Kumar(2009)
Kale, et al.(2009)
Kale, et al.(2009)
Kumar(2009)
Kumar(2009)
Kumar(2009)

< 12>

( )

, Kale, et al. 2009:114 )

58

( )

,

(prototype) .
, ,


.
.
,
() 100%
, 9 .
(, 2006;
Eisenhard, 1989)
.
2011 11 7 2012 10 ,
. CEO
,
. CEO ,
MBA
.
1 2004 2012
CEO ,
. 2 2003 2012
( 2012. 9. 10.)
.

59

2.

2.1.

, ,
.
,
100% .

.
2004 9
. 1
1 ,

2 ,
.

.
2008
. ,
50% , 70%
,
.

, , 1
,

60

Dongfeng()
6%

5%

Dainler Trucks()

1 6%

6%

First Automotive Works ()

7%

China Heavy National Duty

Truck ()
Tata Motors()

15%

8%
11%

MAN-Scania ()

15%
11%

Volvo Global Trucks

< 12>

7%
11%

23%

59%

< 13>

61

2.2.

1955
. 1965
.
, ,
, . 1971
GM 1:1 GM (GM Korea)

GM
.
1978
. 1983 GM
.
10 1992 GM
.
1993 , , ,
(M&A)

. 1995

. 1998
, ,
, , , ,
.
1999

. ,

62

, 2000
11 3 .
, GM
, 2001 GM
. GM ()
2002 10 ()( GM)
, (), (),
() .
() GM , ()
.1)

2003 GM , 2011 GM Korea(GM) ,

2012 10 ()

1)

63

< 13>

1955
1965
1971
1976
1978
1983
1992
1993
1995
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001

2002

.
GM GM



GM . ()
GM 100%


()


,
GM , (MOU)
GM
()
()
()

64

2.3.

(1)

1868 (Jamsetji Tata)

.
625
.
. , ,
.
, 1998
2008
(Nano) . 2012 , IT,
, , , , , 7 100
. 6 80
, 85 .
2010-11 833 ,
58% . 140
,
425,000
27 .
. 31
, 774 (2011.11.17.
) , , ,
(TCS), , , , ,
.
( ) 10
, 4 () ,
140

65

. (TCS)
, , , , , ,
. ()
2 , 2 (soda ash)
, .

.

. ,
.
.
(Brand Finance)
157 100 41 ,
(Business Week)
50 17 , (The Reputation
Institute) 2009 (The Worlds Most
Reputable Companies) 11 .

.
2/3 , , , ,
, ,
(NGO) .

.
4% .

66

(2)

(Tata Motors)

1996
~1997 2 5,000
2011~2012 16 32 8,000
.
3 , 4 , 3
. 2004 9
, 2008 (Jaguar) (Land
Rover) . , 32
. Nielsen Corporate Image
Monitor(CIM) 2011 , , ,
,
. Business Today 2011

1 .
. 1990
12
.

. , 2000 2001 50 (1 25 )
.

.

. 5
1999 ,
.
67

 (Manza)
.


.
60~65% 40%
2 .
2004 2005
(Hispano Carrocer) 2006
(body-building)
,
. 1961
, , , ,
.

. 4,500 1966
ERC( ) ERC ,
, , , , R&D .
.
LCV, SUV
1998 , 2005
.
,

10 (2 )
5 2008 .
(Nano) . 4
, . , (Lean)

68

 ,
, . 4
4, 5
. (Nano)
. 2000
1
. 600
2009~2010 10

,
.
,

.

.
.

.
. . .
. ,

. , .

69

2.4.

(1)

2000 11 3
.
. 2002 9
50% , 30.5% 4.1%
.
() 2002
9 30 2002 11 1
226
1 5,000 17,553,733

1999

2003
30% 2005
,
.

2002 12 3
.

.
,
. < 14>
70

 ()

.
.

, ( S&T
) 10
.
.
100%
, ,
,

.

.

,
. .
. ,
. .
,
.
.

. 2003 7 60
. 2003

71

,
.
2003 2,655 , 165 ,
64 .
() 2003 12 31
603
603
.
1,206 165
, 165

. 165

31 877 6

2003 12
.

< 14> ()

1,622

()

6,417,165

32,085,825

36.56%

5,503,241

27,516,205

31.35%

649,825

3,249,125

37.0%

564,636

2,823,180

32.2%

523,983

2,619,915

29.9%

458,838

2,294,190

26.1%

3,436,045

17,180,225

19.57%

17,553,733

87,768,665

100.00%

72

 .
2004 2 18
2004 3 5
603 2004 3 29 (1
5,000, 1 20,000, 3,016,060)
( 943 ) ,
( 877 ) 262 2004 5 6
. 2004 5 29
( ) .



. CEO
,
,
7, ,
CFO .
(GM 67%, 51%)
100%
.
,
. , , , 10

.
2004

73

 .
.

. GM

.


.
,

.
100 ()
.
2003
, .

< 15>
2003.

2004.

2005.

2006.

2007.

2008.

2009.

2010.

2011.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

616

660

740

816

866

909

956

998

1,046

199

169

150

275

320

369

329

311

301

815

829

890

1,091

1,186

1,278

1,285

1,309

1,347

25

31

30

50

40

30

42

31

36

56

86

136

176

206

248

279

315

( )

74

 .

.
, ,
.

.

,
, 4 2
, 7
. ,
.

.

(2)

1 2009 .
, , , ,

.
, ,
,

.
()

75


.
15

.

.
2006 1 4.5, 5, 7
, 5%
, Korea 2004 , 2007
4
ISO/TS 16949 .


. 30%
. 2004 2008
,
4, 2 , 806 1,267
60% . 2008 4
, (
, 5 ,
) , 2008
80% .
UAE, , , 40
2006 1
2008 2 .

KD(Knock Down) .

2006

76

 .
.
AFZAL Motors Private Limited 2005 KD
2
. KD
. (2.5~3),
(1), 5
15
.
2009

.
2003
(< 15> ),
.
2007 CEO
2007 ,
2009 CEO 30
.

77

< 16> (2003~2012, )

2003.1 2003.12

2004.1 2004.12

2005.4 2006.3

136,835,795,619

153,537,569,041

206,105,333,698

231,529,014,397

204,874,892,297

348,237,852,654

254,400,079,995

306,817,745,173

127,140,843,510

125,006,444,705

126,854,861,614

129,917,334,071

141,010,490,269

189,057,190,321

255,021,562,389

265,045,567,513

277,843,782,914

253,339,698,815

276,030,335,421

290,603,579,133

263,690,657,233

283,454,903,112

347,115,823,967

420,586,204,718

459,896,454,686

613,283,420,167

532,243,862,909

560,157,443,988

61,859,321,998

114,617,377,818

53,390,088,730

74,754,655,758

122,618,118,919

149,366,931,382

157,537,815,941

298,380,289,998

173,491,549,325

214,514,718,628

70,445,928,832

17,495,455,522

50,566,553,552

35,500,245,577

29,915,587,814

44,513,807,596

61,036,248,101

48,066,057,189

78,837,852,857

68,951,753,889

132,305,250,830

132,112,833,340

103,956,642,282

110,254,901,335

152,533,706,733

193,880,738,978

218,574,064,042

346,446,347,187

252,329,402,182

283,466,472,517

87,768,665,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

15,080,300,000

47,585,785,853

154,264,446,808

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

143,403,772,201

81,451,951

108,808,323

133,236,948

-10,860,674,607

1,245,885,807

14,709,028,407

36,103,045,033

68,221,393,539

82,838,318,443

108,271,548,828

121,321,580,203

118,073,662,322

6,673,592

4,056,943

6,901,169

276,030,335,421

290,603,579,133

263,690,657,233

283,454,903,112

347,120,823,967

420,586,204,718

459,896,454,686

613,283,420,167

532,243,862,909

560,157,443,988

8,382,472,638

-11,838,900

78

2009 2010

2005.1 2005.3

2008 2009

11

165,597,134,428

2007 2008

10

148,889,491,911

2006 2007

2010 2011

2011 2012

10

11

2004.1 2004.12

2005.1 2005.3

2005.4 2006.3

2006 2007

2007 2008

2008 2009

2009 2010

2010 2011

2011 2012

2003.1 2003.12

265,545,508,757

296,009,214,278

70,898,058,390

364,939,932,630

493,658,359,272

713,864,881,876

673,073,057,784

683,815,944,248

726,665,517,881

763,468,338,475

231,521,136,319

259,055,790,572

60,678,640,112

306,050,608,832

416,897,257,897

593,768,135,193

548,266,684,865

590,059,810,772

626,522,279,090

670,803,077,426

34,024,372,438

36,953,423,706

10,219,418,278

58,889,323,798

76,761,101,375

120,096,746,683

124,806,372,919

93,756,133,476

100,143,238,791

92,665,261,049

17,525,450,369

25,992,246,338

8,481,315,130

40,171,927,112

49,628,963,754

62,194,261,542

65,541,323,606

70,263,901,787

82,038,957,448

87,615,314,521

16,498,922,069

10,961,177,368

1,738,103,148

18,717,396,686

27,132,137,621

57,902,485,141

59,265,049,313

23,492,231,689

18,104,281,343

5,049,946,528

1,730,416,322

10,700,398,665

3,225,451,832

4,422,483,738

6,446,277,536

5,558,177,746

33,762,671,290

18,763,943,644

12,938,986,229

9,911,082,985

7,744,957,810

10,052,694,888

3,454,182,947

5,195,043,601

4,314,816,912

10,630,049,755

44,451,851,931

10,857,426,304

12,254,084,322

8,535,721,405

10,484,380,581

11,608,881,145

1,509,372,033

17,944,836,823

29,263,598,245

52,830,613,132

48,575,868,672

31,398,749,029

18,789,183,250

6,425,308,108

222,000,000
27,098,824,983

10,484,380,581

-15,267,943,838

1,509,372,033

17,944,836,823

29,263,598,245

52,830,613,132

48,575,868,672

31,398,749,029

18,789,183,250

6,425,308,108

4,007,771,771

3,775,403,407

263,486,226

4,481,694,223

7,869,591,619

14,680,144,626

14,354,553,768

5,965,518,644

2,723,091,875

4,395,120,989

6,476,608,810

-19,043,347,245

1,245,885,807

13,463,142,600

21,394,006,626

38,150,468,506

34,221,314,904

25,433,230,385

16,066,091,375

2,030,187,119

79

2.5.

23, 2 .
23
, , , ,

.
, ,
1
.
5 3
2021
.
2009 10

(1)

, 100%
.
. ,


.

.

.

80


() . () 4 14
,
. , 100%
()

.

.
.
,
.


. Market-driven company
.
.

(2)

.

.

2 50
.

.
81

 .

.
.


.
2010 3 MBA
.
. , , , , , 2
2 2

. ,
.
18 .
.

.
24
. ,

.
.
.
.

82

 ,

.

.
.
.
,

. . .

(3)

CEO.

2 , 2010 10 5
. 10 30
228 Km
.
2
.

.

.
, ,
83

.
()
, , One-stop
3S(Sales, Service, Spare Parts)

.

.

(4)

.


,
. , 2003
10%
2011 15% .

5 .
. 2010 12
OSHAS 18001 .
2011
.

84

 2012 (Toxic
free) .
.
30% .


.
70%
, 2011
10
, ,
.
. 2010 1
(ICCK) -
(CEPA)
.
5 3 , , ,
, 5 5-3-5
,
. , ,
,
. (PRIMA)
2009
2012 (German Design Award)
. 2102 , ,
3,000 40 .

85

2.6.

(1)

, 3.5
, 430 , , ,

.

2020 680

.
30%
. 2011 11 10~15%
23 21
.
,
.
2 , MAN 5 7
7 7 2016 14

.



.
.
1 1
2008

86


(Dongfeng) 1
. , 23%
59%
.
FTA , ,
.

.

. KOTRA 88 5 160
2 1
2 Ashok Leyland 85%
. 8
8 4
.

6,000,000

2010
2011

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000
1,000,000
0

< 14> 2010, 2011 (: )

87

(2)

. 2003

2004 7
. 2012 4 13 [2012
]
1.5
() .
5~6
.
, . 2011
4 .

< 17> , () (: )

2004

51,549

49

33,905

936

16,078

323

106

151

2005

50,747

42

31,816

832

17,213

590

108

146

2006

51,095

38

30,874

707

17,787

1,428

100

161

2007

51,906

32

29,286

698

17,874

3,863

96

157

2008

51,622

30

27,427

483

7,341

6,062

112

167

2009

53,138

30

26,858

440

16,835

8,676

118

181

2010

54,966

29

26,467

390

16,168

11,627

105

180

2011

55,784

59

25,999

357

15,497

13,594

95

183

12

15

21.5

88

25

30

35

35

< 15>
10 2010 320
10 27.5% . 1 80.7%, 1~3
7.5%, 3~5 4.8% . , 2000
20.8% 2010 17.9% .
.
55%, 74%, 30% .
2000 250

. < 18> ,
,

.

89

< 18> , , (: )

2006

228,365

142,566

85,799

2007

237,983

149,676

2008

231,281

2009

105,575

74,077

31,498

12,673

11,930

743

88,307

109,157

70,192

38,965

14,369

13,051

1,318

122,926

108,355

125,063

62,409

62,654

14,339

10,294

4,045

234,205

142,570

91,635

112,872

65,501

47,371

13,812

11,186

2,626

2010

254,528

165,291

89,237

138,268

70,261

68,007

16,024

12,110

3,914

2011

275,210

178,402

96,808

143,981

72,189

71,795

15,208

12,762

2,446

90

3.

< 16>
.
100% 9
,
. R1
.
.
,
.

.
.

< 16>
. R1
. ,
(Limit to
Growth) .
R1
.

91

+
+

+
+

< 16>
92

R1

+
+

4.

.
.
.
< 12>
.
,
. 9
100% .
< 10>, < 11>
< 16> .

.
.
< 9>
.
.
, . ,

.
CSR

93

 .
. 2000

,
()
2003 2012 < 15>.

.
Kale, et al.(2009:14) < 12>

S
A
(Top Executives),
(Autonomy), (Speed of Integration)
.
.
.

.
(Kumar, 2009).

, ,
.
(complementary competencies) .

.
< 19> . Kale, et
al.(2009:14)
( tructure), ( ctivities),

94

< 19>

, ,
, ,



- - ,

(best-in-class)

< 19>

.
(Wayism) < 8> .
< 9> < 11>
. < 19>
.
95

.
1.

1.1.

.

, .

,

.

. .
.


.
Wayism
.
.
CSR CSV
. CSR
CSV ,

96

.

.

.

.

(complementary competencies) .
.

. 2004 IMF
.

.
,

.
< 19> .

. CSR/CSV
,
.

97

1.2.

.
, ,
.

R , , M&A, PMI CSR CSV . ,

2000 2012 SSCI Top
.
55
.

.
.
. <8>,
< 9>, < 10> .
.
.
[
H

[ ]

.
.
]

98

2.

.
55 .

55 .
, .

.
.
. , , ,
.

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

99


www.dart.fss.or.kr, 2012. 9. 10.
, , (1999), , .
(2005), , , 11(2),
63-85.
(2008), , .
, (2010),
, , 11(1),
113-141.
D&S (2007) , D&S:

-13
(1997)
, ,
(A&D) (2008) 4WD , ,
, A&D ,
(2006),
.
, 17(4), 1-30.
, (2009),
, , 10(1),
33-60.
, (2012a),
: , , 13(3),
67-98.
, (2012b), , ,
15(3), 225-250.
, (2012c),
, , 20, 7-32.
2011 6 11 , 2012 12

100

 (1993) :
, ,
: CEO (2004-2012)
: 1(2005 )-29(20012 )
www.tata-daewoo.com

Aulakh,

S., Kotabe, M., & Teegen, H. (2000). Export Strategies and

Performance of Firms from Emerging Economies: Evidence from
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Academy of Management Journal, 43,
342-361.
Banga, R. (2007). The export-diversifying impact of Japanese and US
foreign direct investments in the Indian manufacturing sector,
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 558-568.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive adva ntage,
Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Barney, J., Wright, M, & Ketchen, D. (2001). The resource-based view of
the firm: Ten years after 1991, Journal of M anagement. 27( 6),
625-642.
Bhaumik, S. K., Driffield, N. & Pal, S. (2010). Does ownership structure of
emerging-market firms affect their outward FDI? The case of the
Indian automotive and pharmaceutical sectors, Journal of
International Business Studies, 41, 437-450.
Black, J. S. & Morrison, A. J. (2010). A Cautionary Tale for Emerging
Market Giants, Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 99-103.
Brugmann,J. & Prahalad, C. K. (2007). Cocreating Businesss New Social
Compact, Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 80-90.
Chang, Y., Gong, Y. & Peng, M. W. (2012). Expatriate Knowledge
P.

101

d Subsidiary
Performance, Academy of M anagement Journal, 55(4), 927-948.
Conner, K. R. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the
firm), Knowledge versus opportunism, Organization Science. 7,
477-501.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A. & Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into
advantages, developing-country MNEs in the least developed
countries, Journal of International Business Studies. 39(2), 957-979.
Davies, H., & Walters, P. (2004). Emergent Patterns of Strategy,
Environment and Performance in a Transition Economy, Strategic
Management Journal, 25, 347-364.
DAndrea, G., Marcotte, D. & Morrison, G. D. (2010). Let Emerging Market
Customers Be Your Teachers, Harvard Business Review, 88(12),
115-120.
Dharwadkar, B., George, G. & Brandes, P. (2000). Privatization in Emerging
Economies), An Agency Theory Perspective, Academy of
Management Review, 25(3), 650-669.
Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic
ownership, business groups, and firm performance, Evidence from
Trans er,

Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity,

a large emerging market,

an

Strategic Management

Journal,

27,

Economist Online (2012, April, 24). Focus: Emerging-market cities.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research,
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Feinberg, S. E., & Gupta, A. K. (2009). MNC subsidiaries and country
risk), Internalization as a safeguard against weak external
institutions, Academy of M anagement Journal, 52(2), 381-399.
637 657.

102

Y., Murray, J. Y., Kotabe, M., & Lu, J. (2010). A Strategy Tripod
Perspective on Export Behaviors: Evidence from Domestic and
Foreign Firms Based in an Emerging Economy, Journal of
International Business Studies, 41, 377-396.
Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., & Singh, K. (2007). Institutional Environments,
Staffing Strategies, and Subsidiary Performance: Lessons from
Japanese MNCs, Journal of M anagement, 33(4) 611-635.
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters, Harvard Business Review,
79(8), 137-147.
Gong, Y. (2003). Subsidiary Staffing in Multinational Enterprises: Agency,
Resources, and Performance, Academy of Management Journal,
46(6), 728-739.
Henisz, W. J. & Zelner, B. A. (2005). Legitimacy, Interest Group Pressures,
and Change in Emergent Institutions: the Case of Foreign
Investors and Host Country Governments, Academy of M anagement
Review, 30(2), 361-382.
Henisz, W. J. & Zelner, B. A. (2010). The hidden risks in emerging
markets, Harvard Business Review. 88(4), 88-95.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, H. (1993). The multidivisional
structure: Organizational fossil or source of value, Journal of
Management, 19, 269-298.
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M. & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in
Gao, G.

Emerging Economies, The

Academy of Management Journal,

249 267.

Ichii,

43(3),

S., Hattori S. & Michael, D. (2012). How to Win in Emerging

Markets), Lessons from Japan, Harvard Business Review, 90(5),
126-130.
103

w Opportunity That Lies Next Door, Harvard

Business Review, 90(7), 141-145.
Johnson, B. (2011). The CEO of Heinz on Powering Growth in Emerging
Markets, Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 47-50.
Kale, P., H. Singh, & Raman, A. P. (2009). Dont Integrate Your
Acquisitions, Partner with Them, Harvard Business Review,
87(12), 109-115.
Kanter, R. M. (2009). Mergers that stick, Harvard Business Review, 87(10),
121-125.
Khanna, T., & Palepu K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for
emerging markets, Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 3-10.
Khanna, T., & Palepu K. (1999). The right way to restructure
Jones, G. (2012). The Gro th

conglomerates in emerging markets, Harvar

77(4), 125 134.

d Business Review,

future of business groups in

evidence from Chile, Academy of

Khanna, T., & Pale u K. (2000). The

emerging economies),

Management Journal,

Long-run
43, 268-285.

Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Estimating the Performance Effects of

Business Groups in Emerging Markets, Strategic Management
Journal, 22(1), 45-74.
Khanna, T., & Palepu K. (2006). Emerging Giant: Building world class
companies in Developing Countries, Harvard Business Review,
84(10), 60-69.
Khanna, T., Palepu K. & Sinha, J. (2005). Strategies That Fit Emerging
Markets, Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 63-76.
Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives,
Strategic Management Journal, 9, 319-332.
Khanna, T., &

104

B. & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary

theory of the multinational corporation, Journal of International
Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645.
Kumar, N. & Puranam, P. (2011). Have You Restructured for Global
Success? Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 123-128.
Kumar, N. (2009). How Emerging Giants Are Rewriting the Rules of
M&A, Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 115-121.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox
in Managing New Product Development, Strategic M anagement
Journal, 13, 111-125.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product Innovation Strategy and The
Performance of New Technology Ventures in China, Academy of
Management Journal, 44(6), 1123-1134.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2002). The Adoption of Agency Business
Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese
Technology Ventures, Strategic M anagement Journal, 23, 469-490.
Lu, J. W. & Ma, X. (2008). The Contingent Value of Local Partners
Business Group Affiliations, Academy of Management Journal,
51(2), 295-314.
Mahmood, I. P. & Rufin, C. (2005). Governments dilemma: The role of
government in imitation and Innovation, Academy of M anagement
Review, 30(2), 338-360.
Malik, O. R., & Kotabe, M. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities, Government
Policies, and Performance in Firms from Emerging Economies:
Evidence from India and Pakistan, Journal of M anagement Studies,
45(3), 421-450.
Mair, J., Mart, I, & Ventresca, M. (2012). Building inclusive markets in
Kogut,

105

work institutional voids,

Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819-850.
McCarthy, D. J. & Puffer, S. M. (2008). Interpreting The Ethicality of
Corporate Governance Decisions in Russia: Utilizing Integrative
Social Contracts Theory to Evaluate The Relevance of Agency
Theory, Norms, Academy of M anagement Review, 33(1), 11-31.
Meyer, K. E. (2001). Institutions, Transaction Costs, and Entry Mode
Choice in Eastern Europe, Journal of International Business Studies,
32(2), 357-367.
Mesquita, L. F., & Lazzarini, S. G. (2008). Horizontal and Vertical
Relationships in Developing Economies: Implications for SMEs
Access to Global Markets, Academy of Management Journal. 51(2),
359-380.
Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions,
resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies, Strategic
Management Journal, 30(1), 61-80.
Miller, S., & Eden, L. (2006). Local Density and Foreign Subsidiary
Performance, Academy of Management Journal. 49(2), 341-355.
Miller, D., Lee, J. W., Chang, S. D., & Breton-Mille, I. L. (2009). Filling
the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of
family vs Non-family Technology firms in emerging markets.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 802-817
Nidumolu, R. & Prahalad, C. K. (2009). Why Sustainability Is Now the
Key Driver of Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56-64.
rural

North,
Part,

Bangladesh:

D.(1990).

S.

ho

Institutions,

interme iaries

institutional

economic

d Organizational

Dynamics

change

an

performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

H., &

Luo, Y.

(2001). Guan i an

106

Organizational Networking In Chinese Firms, Strategic Management

Journal, 22, 455-477.
Peng, M. W. (2001). The resource-based view and international business,
Journal of Management, 27, 803-829.
Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional Transitions and Strategic Choices,
Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275-296.
Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned
economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic
choice, Academy of M anagement Review, 21, 492-528.
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in
a Transition Economy: The Nature of a Micro-Macro Link,
Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486-501.
Peng, M. W., Lee, S. & Wang, D. Y. L. (2005). What Determines The
Scope of the Firm Over Time? A Focus on Institutional
Relatedness, Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 622-633.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a Theory of
Community-Based Enterprise, Academy of Management Review,
31(2), 309-328.
Peter, S. (1990). The Fi fth Disci p line : The Art and P ractice of the
Learning Organization, Random House.
Peter, R., Uhlenbruck, K. & Eden, L. (2005). Government corruption and
the entry strategies of multinationals, Academy of Management
Review, 30(2), 383-396
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). Philanthropys new agenda),
creating value, Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 121-130.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The Competitive Advantage of
Corporate Philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-69.
107

M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The link

between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility,
Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value, Harvard
Business Review, 90(1), 62-77.
Prahalad, C. K. & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the Worlds Poor,
Profitably, Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48-57.
Ready, D., Hill, L. A. & Conger, J. A. (2008). Winning the race for talent
Porter,

in

emerging

markets(cover

86(11), 62 70.

story),

Harvar

d Business Review,

Sawant, R. J., (2012). Asset Specificity and Corporate Political Activity in

Regulated industries, Academy of Management Review, 37(2),
194-210.
Shenkar, O., & von Glinow, M. A. (1994). Paradoxes of organizational
theory and research: Using the case of China to illustrate national
contingency, M anagement Science , 40, 56-71.
Simanis, E. (2012). Reality Check at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Harvard
Business Review, 91(6), 120-125.
Spencer, J. W. (2008). The Impact of Multinational Enterprise Strategy on
Indigenous Enterprises: Horizontal Spillovers and Crowding out in
Developing Countries, Academy of M anagement Review,
33(2),
341-361.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and a
Complex World, McGraw-Hill.
Suhomlinova, O. (1999). Constructive destruction: Transformation of
Russian state0-owned construction enterprises during market
transition, O rganiz ation Stud ies, 20, 451-484.
108

Surroca,

b, J. A. & Zahra, S. A. (2012). Stakeholder Pressure on

MNEs and the Transfer of Socially Irresponsible Practices to
Subsidiaries, Academy of Management Journal. Published online
before print July 20, 2012.
Thomson, S. J. (2012). The Perils of Partnering in Developing Markets,
Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 23-25.
Tse, E. (2010). Is It Too Late to Enter China? Harvard Business Review,
88(4), 96-101.
Vaaler, P. M. (2008). How Do MNCs Vote in Developing Country
Elections? Academy of M anagement Journal, 51(1), 21-43.
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005).
Strategy Research in Emerging Economies: Challenging the
Conventional Wisdom, Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1-33.
Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., & Zhou, L. (2010). FDI Spillovers In an Emerging
Market: The Role of Foreign Firms Country Origin diversity and
Domestic Firms Absorptive Capacity, Strategic M anagement
Journal, 31, 969-989.
J., Tri

109

Abstract
Study on Emerging Market Entry Strategy
- System Dynamics Approach -

Chung, Chang-Kwon
The Graduate School of Business Administration
Seoul School of Integrated Sciences and Technologies
Advisor: Lee, Dong-Hyun, Ph.D.
Advisor: Lee, Hyun-Joo, Ph.D.
worldwide recession and stagnant growth in developed countries make
CEO getting interested in emerging market because of higher growth rate and
growth potential of it. 480 of the Fortune 500 companies, which have been
already operating in the emerging markets, are the evidence. But many enterprises
in developed countries, mainly in the case studies of the failure of Japanese
companies, which are regarded to have successful strategies in developed countries,
have not succeeded in emerging markets due to the very successful strategy
applied to developed market. Point is therefore that research on emerging markets
that have a unique structure is urgently needed.
The reason is as follows: First, emerging market cannot be interpreted by
the theoretical framework which is made in the developed countries. Secondly,
emerging market cannot be reviewed as a homogeneous research unit as developed
The

110

because emerging-market countries have their own culture and

time-table for market-opening.
Main topic of this study is the characteristics of emerging markets, the
strategy of entering emerging market, and the expansion strategy of emerging
giant into global market. Three theoretical frameworks are selected to show
the characteristics of emerging markets, Institutional Theory, Transactional Cost
Theory, and Resource-based View. However each theoretical framework can be
useless in practice without integrating view in order to have a holistic view on
countries,

emerging market issues.

As a methodology, this study suggests a set of Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)

which integrates a series of causality mechanism drawn from literature review.
In order to make CLD more objective, all causalities are articulated from recent
55 studies (2000~2012) of SSCI Top Journals. This approach is valuable in that
it is a first try to draw all the causalities from rigorous literature review regarding
emerging market strategy. The 8 CLDs will show and clarify the strategies of
how to expand into emerging market for MNCs. In sum, political activity and
institutional void is a critical factor related to characteristics of emerging market,
and CSR/CSV and cultural distance should be considered as a leverage point.
For all this studys contribution to clarify the causality of emerging market
strategies with abundant literature review, the study has its limits in integrating
and testing CLD.
words: Emerging Market, Emerging Giant, Institutional Void, CSV,
Cultural Distance, Causal Loop Diagram, Systems Thinking
Student Number: 0902001014
Key

111


.
. !
.

.


.

.

. ()
.
, ,
, , .
.

.
, ,
,
.

.
112

 .
Korean Management System MBA
.

Leo, Lynn, Julie, Yanan, Jessica, Sean, Barry, Sunny, Annabel, Fiona,
Belief, Manli, Linx ( ), Kani (), UB (), Saken, Denis,
Ana, Indira ( ) Ali, Olga ( ), Romesh, Keshab
( ), Liyi, Alex, Kirill ( ), Kik, Pack, May, Bonnie, Kade (
)
Will,

.
.
2
,
.
2012
2013 .
.
K-12
CLE(Creative Learning Exchange) Stuntz
.
Scholarship .
.
.

113


.
.
.
.
.
.

. , Art &
. .

. .
.
.

.
. .
.
.
.
-

114


( )
cck@K-Bridge.org

18 13
,
.

K-Bridge
K-12

, ,
Aalto ( ), , EMBA
, , ,
115