Deadly Sins of International Business Blog

Looking at the mere numbers, Burger King does look impressive. Burger King operates close to 11,000 franchises and owns close to 1,500 restaurants globally. It is present in 76 countries where 40 % of all of its restaurants are located. Unfortunately, 40 % of the restaurants abroad only generate about 30 % of the total revenue. Plus, Burger King hasn’t been doing so well in the home market, either. Time to change gears, time to change owners. Only eight years ago, Burger King switched owners when Diageo, the spirits maker based in the UK sold the fast food chain to a consortium of investment firms made up of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners. After its owners took Burger King public in 2006, it will now sell itself to private equity group 3G Capital. What is interesting besides the 3.3 bn US$ price tag which presents a hefty 46 % premium, is the fact that 3G capital is backed by Brazilian interests including Brazilian billionaire, Harvard graduate, Wimbledon tennis player, and resident of Switzerland, Jorge Paulo Lemann. It therefore doesn’t come as a big surprise that plans have already been announced to expand foreign operations into Latin America, with a focus on Brazil. It’ll be interesting to see if the mastermind behind some of the most publicized deals in the beer market can work his magic for Burger King. In the past, Burger King hasn’t been doing so well in a number of foreign markets, including Europe. Burger King has been in Finland for a short period of time in the 1980s before leaving again, it has briefly been in Greece in the 1990s, it pulled out of France in 1998, then left the Ukraine in 2006, and closed operations in Iceland in 2008. They left and re-entered countries such as Austria and Japan. It seems that in many markets they have been up against first movers such as McDonald’s or KFC. But that alone would be nothing but a bad excuse that no executive should get away with. Ill advised product programming, price strategies gone haywire, restaurant design that falls way behind that of McDonald’s restaurants, and a less than ideal use of technology that allows to track trends in sales in real time have all contributed to its poor performance abroad. It seems as if global market potential is there, but Burger King has never been able to fully tap into it. Brazil seems to be different. Burger King has entered the country in 2004 and expanded impressively since then. With its  GDP per capita steadily growing since 2002, the Brazilian market certainly holds a lot of promise for Burger King.

There’s something remarkable going on in China’s automotive industry. Yes, there’s growth, but there’s more to it. Chinese automaker BYD that is backed by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc has set up a Chinese 50-50 joint venture with Daimler in late May. The goal of the joint venture is to jointly design and produce an all-electric vehicle for the Chinese market. This will add a new dimension to Daimler’s expansion in China. Having recently experienced above average sales growth, Daimler also has plans for an engine factory in China – the first one ever outside of Germany. Naturally, Daimler as a corporation thinks of opportunities first and I, as an academic, think of the risks first. Joint ventures haven’t been known to be among the easiest ways to cooperate across borders, especially in China. This one, however, seems to be on a straight trajectory to success. The Chinese government is reported to have announced that it will order 100,000 of the new vehicles come out of the Daimler-BYD joint venture. Although details of the agreement haven’t been made public yet, the government is expected to honor its commitment by 2012. What’s interesting about this is that initial plans to subsidize private consumers for buying electric cars seem to have been scrapped after they drew criticism from the Chinese Communist Party for benefiting mostly the nouveau riche in China. Someone has been doing an excellent job lobbying the Chinese government. For once, it seems that what’s good for an automotive manufacturer will also be good for the environment. And for BYD, the deal is a godsend, too. After record increases in 2009 (by an astonishing 160 percent), it had to announce in early August that it’ll cut its sales targets by 25 %. Obviously, ‘too big to fail’ exists in other countries, too…

Of course, what is commonly referred to as the Chinese phoenix, the fenghuang, only distantly resembles the phoenix of the West. So, erudite reader, please forgive the amateurish use of the phoenix as a metaphor for what’s going on in China’s automotive sector. Mercedes, BMW, or Audi are all reporting very positive developments from the Chinese market. This confirms what insiders to the automotive industry and experts in cross-cultural marketing have long pointed out silently. It’s not necessarily (only) available income that drives purchasing decisions, but national culture plays a big role, too. Income levels in China would suggest that smaller models are sought after, but the opposite is true. Status, power and prestige are very important elements of Chinese culture. Several years ago now, Volkswagen had planned to rapidly increase market share in China by offering a small car – assuming that with rising levels of affluence, everyone would buy a small, entry-level car. Guess what, they didn’t. The polo was simply too small for the Chinese market. Today, larger Volkswagen models such as the Passat or the Tiguan are doing a lot better. Owning a luxury car is the ultimate sign of social status, and so demand in the premium automotive segment is on a constant rise. In July, Audi sold about 50 percent more cars in China than last year, BMW about 80 % more and Mercedes-Benz even tripled its sales. And all of this despite the rather high luxury taxes in China which raise the prices of the flagship models – the S-Class, the 7-series, or the A8 – to about double from what they are in Europe. These developments certainly come at the right time for luxury carmakers whose sales have been less than favorable in their core markets in the West in past years. The Chinese fenghuang is a symbol of virtue and grace – very similar to what the Mercedes brand stands for. Maybe my use of the metaphor isn’t that off after all.

Yes, we have all heard the stories. Stories of patients in need of treatment in the Western hemisphere traveling to countries such as Thailand or India in need for more affordable healthcare, stories of hospitals in the so-called developed world outsourcing certain diagnostic procedures to the so-called emerging markets, or stories of hospitals in the United States who meet their staffing needs by recruiting nurses and doctors from other countries. In a time when the World Health Organization ranks countries such as Singapore 6^th among the world’s healthcare systems and the United States only 37^th, quality concerns are no longer an issue in discussions about the globalization of healthcare. Only questions of liability are still raised as big impediments to a fully globalized healthcare industry. But even these no longer seem to be barriers for business. In Europe, Capio of Sweden, which operates in several European countries including Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland, is owned by global private equity form Apax. And let’s just look at other world regions. Dubai Healthcare City is the world’s first healthcare free trade zone, attracting global brands such as the Mayo Clinic from the USA, Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital from the UK, the German Heart Centre or the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery Hospital. The Cleveland Clinic has entered a contract to manage a hospital in Abu Dhabi and has established similar arrangements with hospitals in Austria, Canada, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Or, let’s look at recent transnational mergers and acquisitions activity in other world regions. In mid-July US-based private equity firms Carlyle and TPG acquired Australia’s Healthscope for nearly US$ 2 billion. Among several hospitals in Australia, Healthscope also has operations in New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore.  In late July, Integrated Healthcare Holdings Ltd of Malaysia won a battle against the Indian Fortis group over Parkway hospitals of Singapore. It seems that the pace at which the world of healthcare is becoming flat is accelerating rapidly.

In a recent post, Australian business blogger Andre Sammartino reports that South African grocer Pick’n’Pay has sold off its Franklins supermarkets (”Australia’s Original Discount Grocer”) to the biggest Australian grocery wholesaler Metcash.  It’s not the first time that Franklins has been sold off after a somewhat unsuccessful takeover. In the late 1970s Franklins was sold to Dairy Farm International who then put it on the market again in 2001 (which was when Pick’n'Pay acquired it). Ironically, Franklin’s new owner Metcash was once South African-owned itself. Besides the mere fact, the interesting observation is the striking frequency with which retailers fail in international markets – WalMart in Germany (and some other countries), Marks and Spencer in the United States (and Hong Kong), Home Depot in Chile, The Gap in Germany, to name but a few. And even more interesting is the question why that is. Using common concepts from the strategic management literature, we could say that it’s either that those companies have not been ready for the markets or that the markets haven’t been right for those companies. The former fits nicely with the structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm. The SCP, in essence, says that it’s all about figuring out how the industry you’re in works and then finding your spot and the selecting an appropriate strategy. Performance will result almost automatically. Assuming that global retailers know how their industry works (even in distant country markets), they must therefore simply have picked the wrong strategy (or executed it poorly). Or, in other words, they may simply not have been ready for the challenges presented by those markets. Under the resource-based view (RBV), we might assume that some of these global retailers possess unique resources and capabilities (that according to the theory should lead to superior performance), but failed to select those markets where these would actually be advantageous. Instead, they chose markets in which their resources and capabilities were not useful or even harmful to their success. So, if you are a retailer and you like theory: next time, do your homework! And if you’re a retailer and you’re more hands-on: well…. do your homework!

It looks like Honda’s China troubles are over for now. Its Chinese joint ventures, Guangqi Honda Automobile and Dongfeng Honda Automobile, will resume operations after having made significant concessions to workers who went on strike mid-May. There were complaints of working conditions and low wages. Honda agreed to raise wages by 25 %. Yes, twentyfive percent. Such a significant increase can only mean (or at least hint to) that Honda has been doing what many multinationals are often accused of – the exploitation of cheap local resources, such as labor. And in fact, workers at Honda or at similar plants earn as low as 1,000 Renminbi monthly, about 150 US$ and have not received a wage increase in five years. What’s the lesson to be learned? Moving production to a low-cost location is not necessarily a bad thing – after all, there’s very little choice for companies in some industries if they want to stay competitive. Besides, foreign direct investment is also helping the development of local economies. However, creating ever worsening wage disparities at foreign subsidiaries of multinational companies over time makes them less welcome than they may have initially been. Besides, in Honda’s case, the company has ambitious plans of growth in the Chinese market. Last year, it produced about 600,00 vehicles in China, but it is looking to increase its capacity by 30 percent to more than 800,000 cars by 2012. The expansion banks on increases in domestic purchasing power. And this is where being not locally responsible becomes a very short-sighted strategy – not only did Honda nothing to contribute to increases in purchasing power, it is also slaughtering its own image.

Other Japanese multinationals in China have recently announced similar increases in output – Nissan plans to produce more than one million cars by 2012, Sharp will double the number of retail outlets, fashion retailer Uniqlo intends to open 1,000 stores by 2020. What happened to Honda recently provides a good lesson for these Japanese companies and for all multinationals from other countries.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, Dunkin Donuts is returning to Russia. After it has retreated from the market in 1999, the owner of the Dunkin’ Donut brand, Dunkin’ Brands, is planning to open 20 stores in Russia this year. At the time when then owner Allied Domecq decided after only three years in the market that Russia would not work for their brand, there were two Dunkin’ Donut stores in Moscow and three outside. The official reason has been Russia’s economic crisis, but there was also talk about difficult relationships with franchisees (in particular one who sold liquor and meat pies in addition to Dunkin’ products). There may have been at least one more reason – at least according to the Wall Street Journal, Russians aren’t really familiar with donut’s. In recognition of this, Dunkin will be experimenting with scalded cream and raspberry fillings. Plus, this time they are bringing in a lot of Russia expertise – Dunkin’ is teaming with a Russian real-estate developer. What’s also noteworthy is that Dunkin’s CEO, Nigel Travis, has developed the Russian market for another US brand in the past, Papa John’s.

Here’s an interesting list of “100 Essential Cheat Sheets for Doing Business Abroad”, ranging from ‘food faux pas’ to ‘dress codes’ to ‘negotiations across cultures’. Not all of it offers the deepest insight available, but it’s definitely a good place to start.

Having been in Iceland during the most recent eruptions of the volcano Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland has been an interesting experience, even with a view to international strategy. Academics and managers have come so accustomed to being in control that the only thing we worry anymore are issues that may be tricky, but still are manageable. Standardize or adapt? Send expatriates or promote locals? Export or invest? Most answers to these questions aren’t easy ones, but there are ways to handle them. Enter the volcano. Apart from it being a belittling experience if one sees the volcano spewing boulders, it is definitely worth a thought to bring the simple things back into the design of international strategies. Let’s not forget that there are events beyond our control that render any strategy, no matter how well designed useless.

Inspired by the recently announced sale of Volvo to Zhejiang Geely by Ford Motor, I tried to find out what’s happening to British Jaguar Land Rover that has been acquired by Tata Motors of India in 2008. Well, the news has been mixed. In fall 2009, Tata Motors has announced plans to close one of two Jaguar Land Rover factories in England by 2014. This didn’t seem surprising for ailing car brands. It made even more sense when the year-end results showed a loss of $565 million. Most recently however, in March 2010, the US magazine BusinessWeek reported that sales are picking up and Tata’s luxury division has even turned a profit of $141 million in the most recent quarter. New executives have been hired away from GM and BMW, so everything looks good. This will certainly be a transnational acquisition that continues to be of interest.