Global Business Today Ninth Edition Chapter 12
transnational strategy makes sense when cost pressures are intense, and simultaneously, so are
pressures for local responsiveness.
International Strategy
E) When there are low cost pressures and low pressures for local responsiveness, an international
strategy is appropriate. An international strategy involves taking products first produced for the
domestic market and then selling them internationally with only minimal local customization.
The Evolution of Strategy
G) An international strategy may not be viable in the long term, and to survive, firms may need to
shift to a global standardization strategy or a transnational strategy in advance of competitors.
Similarly, localization may give a firm a competitive edge, but if the firm is simultaneously facing
aggressive competitors, the company will also have to reduce its cost structures and the only way
to do that may be to shift toward a transnational strategy.
Management Focus: The Evolution of Strategy at Procter & Gamble
Summary
This feature explores the evolution of Procter & Gamble’s global strategy. In 1915, Procter &
Gamble opened its first foreign operation in Canada. In the 1950s and 1960s, Procter & Gamble
expanded into Western Europe, and then, in the 1970s, into Japan and other parts of Asia.
Throughout this expansion, the company maintained all product development at its Cincinnati,
Ohio headquarters, while each subsidiary took on the responsibility for manufacturing, marketing,
and distributing the products. Procter & Gamble shifted its strategy in the 1990s, closing several
foreign locations and moving to a more regional approach to global markets. In 1999, the
company implemented “Organization 2005”, a business unit approach whereby different units are
entirely responsible for generating profits for a product group. Discussion of this feature can begin
with the following questions:
Suggested Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the evolution of Procter & Gamble’s strategy. Do you think Procter & Gamble was
reactive or proactive in its approach to strategy in the late 1990s and early 2000s?
Discussion Points: Many students will probably suggest that Procter & Gamble took a reactive
approach to its strategy in the early 1990s, but was more proactive in the late 1990s and 2000s.
The company’s initial reorganization was a reaction to a changing marketplace and sluggish
profits, however, when it became apparent that the reorganization attempt was not really fixing the
problems that existed, the company embarked on a new strategy. This time, rather than simply
trying to adjust its existing strategy as the company had done in 1993, Procter & Gamble
completely dismantled the structure that had been in place for a quarter of a century and
reorganized as a company ready to operate in a global marketplace.