17. The benefits from fragmenting a product’s value chain across multiple locations almost always
outweigh the costs of coordinating globally dispersed activities.
[See p.321-322]
18. If the firm’s competitive advantage is country–based, the firm can exploit foreign markets either by
exports or by direct investment
[See pp.322-323]
19. In pharmaceuticals (where patent protection tends to be strong), exports or direct foreign investment
will tend to be preferred over licensing as a means of exploiting overseas markets.
[See pp.323-324]
20. Starbucks entry into India by means of a joint venture with Tata Group in preference to its usual
practice of operating wholly owned subsidiaries outside the US reflects Starbucks’ view that Indian market
is highly complex and Starbucks needed the knowledge and connections possessed by a local partner.
[See p.323]
21. Traditionally, European-based multinational companies such as Unilever, Shell, and Philips have been
highly centralized; Japanese multinationals such as Honda, Sony, and Hitachi have been highly
decentralized.
[See pp.331-332]
22. A key difference between Bartlett and Ghoshal’s “transnational corporation” and the conventional US
multinational corporation (described by Bartlett and Ghoshal as a “coordinated federation”) is that
communication and coordination occurs between national units rather than exclusively between each
national unit and the corporate HQ
[See pp.332-334]
23. In Ghemawat’s “Aggregation, Adaptation, Arbitrage” framework, the potential for a multinational
enterprise to exploit arbitrage benefits are likely to be greater in a capital-intensive industry than in a labor-
intensive industry
[See p.334-335]