– M B A 5/ 2 0 0 8–
Jan Nowak, Ph.D.
Nowakj@ceubusiness.org
CEU Business School, Budapest, Hungary
The Tortuous Road
to Geocentrism in
MNC Management
Introduction
It is a sort of cliché to state that the multina-
tional corporation (MNC)1 is one of the most
important economic and social institutions of
our times and a major force behind globaliza-
tion. And yet, the sheer power and influence
MNCs exert eschew our imagination unless we
are reminded about the overwhelming share
of these organizations in the world economic
activity in general, and in foreign direct invest-
ment (FDI) and innovatory capacity creation
and diffusion in particular. Collectively, MNCs
account for more than 90% of the world’s
FDI stock and nearly 50% of the world trade
(Rugman 2005, p. 3). MNCs also account for
a very large share in international trade and
play a major role in global R&D. UNCTAD
(2005, p. 119) estimates that the 700 largest
R&D spending firms of the world (of which at
least 98 % are MNCs) account for nearly half
of the world’s R&D expenditure and for more
than two-thirds of the world’s business-related
research and development.
No wonder then that the study of the MNC
has attracted heightened attention from many
scholars around the world, representing a
broad range of academic disciplines or fields,
including economics, international business,
international trade, business strategy, inter-
national management, industrial organization,
organization theory2, and political science.
Having been embraced by a variety of dis-
ciplines, the study of the MNC is inevitably
eclectic. There is no one agreed upon theory
of this corporation. Instead, there’s a patch-
work of theories and paradigms pinpointing
different aspects of the MNC activity. This
essay draws mostly on theoretical work and
empirical findings accumulated within the
international business and international man-
agement fields. It focuses on the evolution of
management philosophies and strategies fol-
lowed by MNCs since the mid-1960s.
From Ethnocentrism to Polycentrism
to Regiocentricm to Geocentrism
The seminal article of Perlmutter (1969) set
out an MNC orientation (also called predispo-
sition) classification framework, distinguish-
ing between ethnocentric, polycentric and
geocentric MNCs. Later on, the framework
was refined and extended to incorporate a re-
giocentric orientation (Heenan and Perlmutter
1979; Perlmutter 1984). In addition to being
a classification model (called the E.P.R.G.
model), the framework identifies stages in the
growth of the multination corporation – from
ethnocentrism to polycentrism to regiocen-
trism to geocentrism. Despite the popular-
ity of the Perlmutter’s framework, which has
been often cited in popular press and widely
used in international business, international
management and international marketing
text books3, it has been largely ignored by
the main stream scientific research into the
MNC (notable exceptions are the studies of
Hedlung 1996; Tolentino 2002; and Jansson
2005). This is probably due to the fact that
the framework has been developed based on
59
 – M B A
fairly unstructured interviews of executives
representing an undisclosed sample of multi-
nationals and remained largely speculative and
impressionistic (Toletino 2002, p. 74). In fact,
Perlmutter’s research approach was essentially
to discern states of mind and attitudes of MNC
executives through qualitative research. And
yet, the framework’s conceptual power cannot
be denied and one would wish to see more
research putting it to test by using rigorous
data collection methods.
Although to the best of this author’s knowl-
edge, Perlutter’s framework has not been rigor-
ously tested based on large samples of MNCs,
similar classification schemes have received
much more attention on the part of empirical
studies. For example, the framework proposed
by Bartlett (1986), and empirically tested by
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), Leong and Tan
(1993), and Ghoshal and Nohria (1993), re-
sembles the MNC classification of Perlmutter
(1969). The three types of MNCs conceptual-
ized by Bartlett are multinational, global and
transnational corporations. Multinational type
of MNC conforms to the polycentric, global
to the ethnocentric and transnational, more
or less, to the geocentric type of corpora-
tion according to Perlmutter’s typology (for
comparison, see e.g. Tolentio 2002, Table 1).
Some other authors label Perlmutter’s polyc-
entric corporation as multi-domestic (Porter
1986; Sundaram and Black 1992; and Harzing
2000) or multi-local (Gerpott 1990, cited af-
ter Tolentino 2002). The ethnocentric MNC
is sometimes labeled multinational (Adler and
Ghadar 1990), and the geocentric company,
in addition to being frequently called transna-
tional, is sometimes referred to as mixed (Mef-
fert 1989, cited after Tolentino 2002), hybrid
60
5/ 2 0 0 8–
(Gerpott 1990, cited after Tolentino 2002),
multi-focal (Sundaram and Black 1992), dual
(Welge 1996, cited after Tolentino 2002) and
global (Adler and Ghadar 1990). In light of this
diversity of MNC typologies, with the same
name sometimes used to describe different
types of the MNC, the Permutter’s framework
gains currency as being one of the oldest, the
most clear-cut, and arguably the most appeal-
ing intellectually. An additional advantage of
Perlmutter’s framework is that it not only
provides a MNC classification scheme but also
a predictive model regarding the evolution of
the MNC. In particular, the geocentric type
of the MNC has attracted renewed attention
due to an increased role of global integration
and heterarchical networks of contemporary
multinational corporations (Tolentino 2002).
But let us first describe the four types of the
MNC, and the four stages of its evolution,
as conceptualized by Perlmutter (1969) and
Heenan and Perlmutter (1979).
Table 1 summarizes the main features of
each type or a strategic orientation of MNCs
according to several important managerial di-
mensions. What follows below is a succinct and
insightful characterization of the four strategic
orientations.
In a somewhat crude expression, Perlmut-
ter characterizes the ethnocentric mindset
by reporting an imaginary executive as say-
ing: “We, the home nationals of X company,
are superior to, more trustworthy and more
reliable than any foreigners in headquarters or
subsidiaries. We will be willing to build facili-
ties in your country if you acknowledge our
inherent superiority and accept our methods
and conditions for doing the job.” (Perlmutter
 – M B A
1969, p. 11). In more polite words, one can say
that an ethnocentric company is predisposed
to values and interests of the parent company
(or home-country oriented). Plans for overseas
markets are developed in the home office,
utilizing policies and procedures identical to
those employed in the domestic market. The
parent tries to run overseas operations the
way they are run at home. In the marketing
area, the corporation sells basically the same
product abroad that it markets domestically
and follows the same pricing, distribution
and promotion strategies to the largest extent
possible. Executives in both headquarters
and subsidiaries express the national iden-
tity of the company by associating it with the
parent’s nationality and tend to be proud of
that nationality. They also explain and justify
the headquarters’ way of running the whole
corporation by referring to the values, norms
and procedures of the parent company (e.g.,
by saying: “we are a Swiss company and that’s
why we do it that way”).
The polycentric company is host-country
oriented. Top executives of such a company
“[…] begin with the assumption that host-
country cultures are different and that foreign-
ers are difficult to understand. Local people
know what is best for them, and the part of
the firm which is located in the host country
should be as «local in identity as possible»”
(Pelmutter, 1969, p. 12). The polycentric-
predisposed parent company lets its overseas
subsidiaries operate independently from the
parent and each other and pursue their own
objectives and plans. The subsidiaries are run
like profit centers, with financial controls as
the only tool used by the parent in managing
them. The marketing function is organized
5/ 2 0 0 8–
on a country-by-country basis, and marketing
research is conducted independently in each
country. Separate product lines are developed
in each country, and home country products
are modified to meet foreign markets’ specific
requirements.
An MNC with a regiocentric predisposition
is less focused on a particular country than
on a world region, across which it will try to
capitalize on economic, cultural and regulatory
similarities. A regiocentric MNC can either
focus on one region or on two or more regions
of the world. In the latter case, it will establish
regional centres that will enjoy a fair amount
of independence from the corporate headquar-
ters. Regional centres develop region-based or
adapted products which are fairly standardized
within the regions, but different between the
regions. Regional strategies are particularly
warranted in the regions which are subject to
economic integration, such as European Un-
ion, NAFTA and ASEAN, because “integrated”
regions will exhibit market-regulation similari-
ties in addition to possible homogenization of
consumer preferences.
In the geocentric stage, the corporation
shapes its operations on a global basis. It views
the entire world as a potential market and
tries to minimize the significance of national
boundaries. Marketing and other functional
strategies are integrated and co-ordinated
across country markets. Standardized product
lines for worldwide markets are developed, and
pricing is established on a similar basis. Promo-
tion campaigns are developed worldwide to
project a uniform image of the company and
its products. In its staffing policy, a geocentric
MNC seeks the best personnel, regardless of
61
 – M B A 5/ 2 0 0 8–

Table 1. Types of Strategic Management Orientations of MNCs and their Characteristics

Dimensions Ethnocentric Polycentric Orientation Regiocentric Geocentric

of MNC Orientation Orientation Orientation
Orientation
Locus of strategic Headquarters National subsidiaries Regional centers or Collaborative between
decision making regional headquarters headquarters and
subsidiaries; heads of
subsidiaries part of
corporate management
team
Citizenship Nationality of home Nationality of host Global company with Truly global company
identification country country regional interest but identifying with
national interests
Evaluation and Home-country Based mostly on profit Determined by both Collaborative standards
control standards applied to targets headquarters and that are universal and
subsidiaries regional centers local with significant
role of non-financial
measures
Communication; From headquarters to Little from and to Between headquarters Between headquarters
information flow subsidiaries; orders, headquarters; little and regional centers and and subsidiaries and
commands, advice between subsidiaries between the region and among subsidiaries
its subsidiaries
Corporate Domestic-market driven National responsiveness Regional integration and Global integration and
strategy national responsiveness national responsiveness
Organization Hierarchical, product- Geographic area-based Product and regional Product-based or matrix
structure based or functional with autonomous organization (heterarchical)
national units
R&D and Centralized at Decentralized; products Located at the regional Collaborative, involving
new product headquarters; no inputs developed at the level with inputs for the
headquarters and
development from subsidiaries subsidiary level based on region’s subsidiaries subsidiaries; successful
local needs local products
introduced to global
markets
Marketing Determined by the Customized at the Standardized within the Standardized across
strategy needs of the home national level region, but not across the world with local
country customers; regions variations
“extended” to foreign
markets
HRM Overseas operations Local nationals used to Regional management The best mangers
management managed by people from manage subsidiaries talent developed and anywhere in the world
practices the home country used to manage regional developed for key
centers and subsidiaries positions everywhere in
within the region the world
Source: Compiled based on Perlmutter (1969) and Chakarvarthy and Perlmutter (1985), and supplemented with
the author’s own interpretation.

nationality, to work for the corporation any-
where in the world. As Perlmutter put it: “The
ultimate goal of geocentrism is a worldwide ap-
proach in both headquarters and subsidiaries.
The firm’s subsidiaries are thus neither satellites
nor independent city states, but parts of a whole
whose focus is on worldwide objectives as well
as local objectives, each part making its unique
contribution with its unique competence.” (ibi-
dem, p. 13). Geocentrism, however, does not
imply that the company ignores differences be-
tween national environments and blindly pushes
standardized products and processes on to the
subsidiaries and their local markets.

62
 – M B A
Geocentric predisposition adheres to the
famous saying “think globally, act locally”.
It does embrace national or local responsive-
ness and it does allow local variations in its
strategies and operations. The most important
feature of a geocentric corporation is that it
operates as a network of organizations, which
are all tied together by common objectives
and strategies and capitalize on their indi-
vidual distinct competences and competitive
advantages.
One of the best illustrations of how a geo-
centric (global) corporation works is provided
by an interview with the former president and
CEO of ABB, Percy Barnevik (Taylor 1991).
Let’s begin by citing Barnevik’s opening line on
what kind of company ABB is: “ABB is a com-
pany with no geographic center, no national
axe to grind. We are a federation of national
companies with a global coordination center.
Are we a Swiss company? Our headquarters
is in Zurich, but only 100 professionals work
at headquarters […]. Are we a Swedish com-
pany? I’m the CEO and I was born and edu-
cated in Sweden. But our headquarters is not
in Sweden, and only two of the eight members
of our board of directors are Swedes. Perhaps
we are an American company. We report our
financial results in U.S. dollars, and English
is ABB’s official language. We conduct all
high-level meetings in English. My point is
that ABB is none of those things – and all of
those things. We are not homeless. We are a
company with many homes.” (Taylor 1991,
p. 92). ABB is a complex organization with a
broad range of businesses that fall somewhere
between superlocal and superglobal. The
company tries to optimize its business globally
by letting its subsidiaries to specialize in the
5/ 2 0 0 8–
production of components to drive econo-
mies of scale but at the same time fostering
synergistic interdependences and transfer of
knowledge between those subsidiaries. To do
so, ABB rotates managers and technologists
around the world to share expertise and solve
problems. At the same time, the company
wants to have deep local roots everywhere it
operates. For example, in Germany it behaves
like a German company and maintains good
relations with state and local governments, and
in Switzerland it wins contracts by deeply un-
derstanding the Swiss government concern for
environment. Its global management system
does not suppress cultural differences. Global
managers (those on executive committee and
the teams running business areas) respect how
different country subsidiaries do things and
they have the ability and willingness to ap-
preciate why they do them that way. But they
also “[…] sort through the debris of cultural
excuses and find opportunities to innovate.”
(ibidem, p. 94). ABB’s matrix organizational
structure reflects its management philosophy.
As Barnevik put it: “It [the matrix] allows us to
optimize our business globally and maximize
performance in every country in which we
operate.” (ibidem, p. 95). Through its matrix
organization, the company tries to reconcile
the following three contradictions: between
being global and local; between being big and
small; and between being a centralized and
decentralized organization.
More than four decades after the initial part
of the E.P.R.G. framework was proposed, and
in spite of a clear trend towards geocentric
orientation among many MNCs, fuelled by
accelerating forces of globalization and tech-
nological progress in more recent times, there
63
 – M B A
are still relatively few companies that meet all,
or the majority, of the geocentricity criteria
contained in Table 1. Even the largest MNCs
in the world do not exhibit many features that
would unequivocally qualify them as geocen-
tric. Apparently, the road to geocentrism in
MNC management and strategy has been long
and tortuous. Some authors even call the global
corporation more a myth than a reality (see
for example Doremus et al. 1998).
Meanwhile, a growing number of multina-
tionals may have become regiocentric. One of
the most fanatic proponents of regionalization
of MNCs’ strategies and operations are Alan
Rugman and his co-authors. Their views and
those of their opponents are discussed in the
following section.
Regionalization-Globalization Debate
Rugman and his collaborators (Rugman
2003; Rugman 2004; Rugman and Verbeke
2004a and 2004b; Collinsson and Rugman
2005; Rugman 2005; Oh and Rugman 2006)
argue that the vast majority of the largest
MNCs, declared by the Fortune Magazine as
global, are in fact regional, not global. Based
on the analysis of regional breakdown of sales
of the world’s 500 largest firms, Rugman et al.
conclude about the predominantly regional fo-
cus and scope of operations of these firms. For
example, out of the 64 Japanese largest mul-
tinationals, for which regional sales data are
available, only 3 are global whereas 57 of them
derive more than 80% of their sales from the
Asian region (Collins and Rugman 2005, p. 3).
Similarly, there are only three truly global mul-
tinationals in each of the two remaining parts
of the Triad – North America and Western
Europe Consequently, of 380 firms included
64
5/ 2 0 0 8–
in the sample, only nine could be considered
genuinely global (Rugman 2005).
The proponents of the regiocentric orien-
tation of the vast majority of MNCs grapple
with such questions as: What is the nature
and extent of the regional embeddedness of
these MNCs’ supply chains and distribution
channels? Why are their core competences
seemingly exhausted in their home regions?
Why are the Asian-based firms so similar to
their European and North American counter-
parts in their lack of globalization? (Rugman
2004).
Rugman and Verbeke (2004a) explain the
puzzle of regional concentration of sales by
modifying the transaction-cost theory, ac-
cording to which firms expand internation-
ally in order to exploit their firm specific ad-
vantages (FSAs), i.e. proprietary knowledge,
through internalizing markets, as opposed
to external transactions such as exporting,
to minimize transaction costs and risks of
losing the value of their proprietary assets
(that could either be pirated, dissipated or
inappropriately used). If this theory is linked
to the MNC’s ability to adapt successfully the
deployment of its FSAs to the specific condi-
tions of foreign markets, it becomes clear that
the explanation of regional focus of so many
multinationals lies in the transaction costs
being substantially lower when penetrating
home-region markets than in host-region
markets. This is simply because MNCs are
faced with lower liabilities of foreignness in
their own regions. The outcome is stronger
embeddedness of the MNC’s extended
knowledge base and hence higher sales (Rug-
man and Verbeke 2004b, p. 6).
 – M B A
Some other scholars criticize Rugman et
al.’s approach, pointing out that basing MNCs’
orientation or strategy only on sales figures
provides an incomplete analysis. Even if sales
data are supplemented by assets data (as Rug-
man and Collinson, 2005 do for Japanese
multinationals), the picture is still incomplete.
As Aggarwal, Kearney and Berrill (2006)
point out “This analysis fails to adequately
capture both the breadth and depth of firms
in terms of their multinationality” (pages
unnumbered). The same authors argue that
firms with regional sales and production as-
sets concentration may be global in their al-
liances and investments (ibid.). For example,
Coca Cola Company is classified by Rugman
and Verbeke as global but McDonald’s is con-
sidered to be regiocentric, although the latter
has over 30,000 of restaurants in 119 countries
worldwide.
Dunning et al. (2007) also take issue with
Rugman et al.’s approach. Although Dunning
et al.’s analysis of MNCs’ global distribution
of FDI broadly confirms their regional focus,
it also reveals that the regional concentration
of FDI rather reflects the GDP and trade of
the countries concerned than any strategic
orientation of the investing firms. The same
authors argue that even if the sales and FDI of
MNCs are concentrated in one or two regions,
it cannot be inferred that these corporations’
strategies are regional rather than global. How-
ever, the role of increasing regional integration
in Europe, North American and South-east
Asia and the tendency to enlarge the three
major integrative groupings – EU, NAFTA
and ASEAN – needs to be investigated in the
context of the globalization/regionalization
debate (p. 187).
5/ 2 0 0 8–
Towards Geocentrism in MNC
Management and Strategy: Drivers
and Obstacles
For several decades the MNC has been
under the simultaneous influence of forces
for global integration and forces for national
differentiation4. The juxtaposition of these
two forces has largely determined what the
emerging model of an “ideal” multinational
might be. Table 2 presents the respective forces
for global integration and for national differ-
entiation/responsiveness. A brief description
of these forces is provided in the subsequent
paragraphs.
The growing homogenization of markets
across societies, heralded by T. Levitt (1983)
more than 20 years ago, has led to the emer-
gence of market segments, with similar needs,
preferences, psychographics, media-graph-
ics and consumer behavior, which cut across
national borders and cultures. The teenage
segment, for instance, is considered to be the
primary example of global consumer segments.
Teens show surprising similarity in the way
they behave, clothes they wear and music they
listen to, no matter where in the world they
live5. Thus, many companies target teenagers
with world-wide marketing mixes (e.g. MTV,
Benetton, Planet Hollywood, Apple Compu-
ter, Sony, Levi Strauss, and Pepsi Co.). Global
segments can also be identified among other
demographic groups which are usually targeted
with luxury or premium type products, such
as expensive watches, perfumes, high-per-
formance motorcycles and designer clothes.
In business-to-business markets, companies
with multinational operations are likely to have
similar needs and requirements worldwide
(Douglas and Wind 1987).
65
 – M B A
Table 2. Forces for global integration and for national differentiation/responsiveness
Forces for Global Integration
Growing homogenization of markets
Growing parity in technology and managerial know-how
among countries
Advances in information and communications technology
Global competition
Desire to optimize/rationalize the use of human and material Economic disparities between countries
resources across countries
Internationalization of value-adding activities
Growth of inter-firm collaborative agreements
Source: Compiled by the author based on many books and articles, but drawing mostly on Perlmutter (1969); Levitt
(1983); Dunning (1988 and 1993); and Ghoshal and Westney (1993).
The faster diffusion of technology and
managerial know-how worldwide makes the
location of the various operations managed
by MNCs less bound to key countries, which
used to lead the world in these areas. Technol-
ogy transfer reaches the most remote parts of
the world, and the developing countries are
increasingly capable of hosting leading-edge
production systems, in both manufacturing
(e.g. China in electronics and automobiles)
and service sectors (e.g. India in IT-enabled
business process outsourcing). Likewise,
managerial know-how is becoming both more
mobile and easier to develop locally through
education and training.
Advances in information and commu-
nication technologies (ICTs) have become
pervasive. Computer-aided design (CAD),
engineering (CAE) or manufacturing (CAM)
enable easy product adaptation or customi-
zation to specific market requirements of
various countries. Convergence of comput-
ing, communication and image manipulation
technologies into a cluster of digital ICTs
promises speedier and easier information
66
5/ 2 0 0 8–
Forces for National Differentiation/Responsiveness
Differing regulatory regimes and state intervention
Cultural differences between countries (distinctive tastes
and preferences of consumers)
Distinctive national marketing systems
Host country social and political mistrust
Headquarters desire for control
flows worldwide, allowing for flexible loca-
tion of companies’ headquarters and affiliated
offices. Companies using ICTs are less and
less tied to their present locations. Staff can
be scattered around the world, yet not lose
touch among themselves; indeed, integra-
tion of computers, telecommunication and
TV allows for interactive collaboration of
employees located in different parts of the
world. Of all these technological changes,
the emergence and rapid spread of the In-
ternet-based communication and commerce
over the last decade and a half has arguably
had and will have the most profound impact
on MNC operations. The Internet facilitates
business communications and transactions,
transcending national borders and bringing
buyers and sellers from all over the world into
contact with each other on a scale not known
before. Together with the spread of satellite
television, the Internet has enhanced MNCs’
ability to reach global customers, build global
image of their products and participate in glo-
bal networks spanning producers, suppliers,
distributors, assemblers and other collabora-
tors in the value creation.
 – M B A
Companies faced with global competition
are inclined to select market opportunities
and allocate resources to the individual mar-
kets and units of the corporation within the
competitive environment of its industry and
a global assessment of competitive reaction.
They tend to position their products against
the competition in the entire world market.
They are also more likely to leverage on core
competencies worldwide (e.g. efficient manu-
facturing, superior technology, innovative
marketing) and allocate capital according to
competitive requirements and not necessarily
returns or risk. Therefore, they may exten-
sively use cross-subsidization for competitive
purposes. Global competition requires MNCs
to manage their subsidiaries interdependently
and to locate value-adding activities according
to the comparative advantage of individual
countries.
The evidence of inefficiencies under poly-
centric or multi-domestic orientation has
led to the desire for a more optimal use of
resources controlled by a MNC. Instead of
“remotely” controlling national subsidiaries
which are focused on their local markets and
carry out production and marketing activities
locally, while enjoying a significant measure
of autonomy, many multinationals have sought
both synergies and economies of scale and
scope in production, R&D, marketing (and
other value-adding activities) by linking their
subunits to each other, as well as to the head-
quarters. To achieve that, they are increasingly
organizing cross-flows of people, technology,
processes, expertise and products in such a
way that the slices of the same value-added
chain are located in countries where they can
be implemented most competitively. At the
5/ 2 0 0 8–
same time strengths and achievements (e.g.
innovations) of individual units are utilized
across the corporation.
The trend that is reinforcing the above phe-
nomenon is the growing internationalization
of the value-adding activities. Many of these
activities have become increasingly footloose,
owing among other things to the advances in
ICTs, and can be easily detached from each
other and from the headquarters. For example,
R&D activities, traditionally centralized at the
headquarters, are increasing scattered across
the subunits, with their location determined
by the availability and cost of “scientific” work
force and the innovatory capacity of the host
country (e.g. proximity to research institutes
and universities).
The growth of inter-firm collaborative alli-
ances and networks and their significance for
the evolution of the MNC was already noted
and documented in the late 1980s. At that
time Dunning (1989) wrote: “From behav-
ing largely as a confederation of loosely knit
foreign affiliates, designed primarily to serve
the parent company with natural resources
or local markets with manufactured products
and services, to its maturation over the past 15
years as a controller of a group of integrated
value adding activities in several countries, the
MNE is now increasingly assuming the role of
an orchestrator of production and transactions
within a cluster, or network, or cross border
internal and external relationships, which
may or may not involve equity investment, but
which are intended to serve its global interests”
(p. 327). Dunning likens this phenomenon and
the emerging style of the MNC governance and
management to “the nervous system of a much
67
 – M B A
larger group of independent but less formally
governed activities, whose function is prima-
rily to advance the global competitive strategy
and position of the core organization” (ibid.).
The collaborative alliances and networks
among MNCs were more intensively studied
in the subsequent decade and serious attempts
were made to incorporate this phenomenon
into the theory of international business (e.g.
Dunning 1996 and 1997).
As shown in Table 2, there have been several
forces at work that have counterbalanced or
impeded the advance of the forces for global
integration characterized in the preceding
paragraphs.
Despite the trend towards less restrictive
and more uniform across nations regulations
shaping the conditions of MNCs operations in
host countries, the differences in this respect
do persist and some host governments choose
to restrain certain aspects of MNCs’ activi-
ties and policies. In particular, employment
(e.g. restricting the employment of foreign
nationals) and material sourcing (e.g. requir-
ing sourcing a certain percentage of supplies
from local suppliers) are the areas of numer-
ous restrictions, mitigating multinationals
desire to recruit their managers and source
their materials and components globally. State
intervention may take other forms as well,
such as restricting access to certain, deemed
strategic, industries and imposing national
standards that may be difficult to integrate
with the standards of other host-countries or
the home country.
Likewise, in spite of the globalization forces
at work and the homogenization of consumer
68
5/ 2 0 0 8–
needs and preferences, cultural difference still
persist and affect the level of globalization or
standardization of products and marketing
communications. In particular, in “culture-
bound” product categories, such as food and
apparel, MNCs are confronted with differing
tastes, customs and consumption patters, very
often determined by religious convictions of
the local population. Backlashes experienced
by such companies as KFC in India and Bata
Shoes in Bangladesh attest to the need for ex-
treme cultural sensitivity.
While the cultural differences impede the
standardization of products and marketing
communications from the consumer’s point
of view, the differences in national market-
ing systems may restrict the rationalization
of marketing practices. In particular, the
sharp differences in the structure and qual-
ity of distribution systems between, generally
speaking, developed and developing countries,
have precluded MNCs from adopting efficient
logistics and distribution practices that could
be co-ordinated or rationalized across national
markets. For example, the lack of marketing
channel integration and the fragmented nature
of retail and wholesale trade, coupled with
severe restrictions on FDI in these spheres,
in countries such as India, necessitate the use
of numerous, often poorly performing, inter-
mediaries thus leading to long, convoluted and
inefficient distribution channels for products
marketed by otherwise modern and efficient
MNCs.
Host-country political and social mistrust
vis-ŕ-vis multinationals is a well known phe-
nomenon, stemming largely from these com-
panies size and financial power, very often
 – M B A
exceeding that of the host government. The
mistrust, in such a situation, is unavoidable and
may restrict MNCs in their desire to assume
a more geocentric stance. In their attempt to
counterbalance such mistrust, many MNCs
may choose to create an image of being a lo-
cally-rooted and locally-responsive company,
as well as being a good corporate citizen. Such
a stance is likely to restrict certain practices
that might be more in line with geocentric pre-
scriptions. For example, a MNC may choose to
employ more locals and obtain various input
goods and services locally, even it this practice
cannot be justified on rational grounds.
Although not growing, and perhaps even
declining, the economic disparities between
countries do persist. An average income in
Africa can be 50 times lower than in West-
ern Europe or North America. There’s no
doubt that applying the same marketing,
production, financial, HRM and other func-
tional strategies in such different economic
conditions would not be feasible or desir-
able. In the marketing area alone numerous
adaptations to the economic circumstances
may be needed. In low-income jurisdictions,
products need to be stripped-down, prices
discounted, local cheaper brands developed,
packages minimized, credit terms extended,
and distribution channels fragmented to
reach dispersed and poor consumers who can
only afford buying small doses of low-value
products for cash.
The regiocentric organization, as charac-
terized in Table 1, requires a fair amount of
decentralization and collaboration between
headquarters and subsidiaries, with pre-
dominantly two-way communication and
5/ 2 0 0 8–
information flows used in managing it. The
evolving ethnocentric MNC may find it dif-
ficult to change the underlying governance
and management systems which provide the
headquarters with a great deal of control over
its subsidiaries. The reluctance to relinquish
control is often a barrier to the adoption of
geocentrism in MNC management. On the
other hand, it seems to be easier, at least theo-
retically, for a polycentric (multi-domestic)
MNC to evolve into a geocentric organization,
as the requisite decentralization ingredients
already exist. The challenge, or course, is to
make the essentially independent subsidiaries
to work interdependently.
What seems to be emerging at the juxtapo-
sition of these two groups of largely opposing
forces is an organization that tries to move
towards a geocentric model but, at the same
time, creatively, and in many cases somewhat
reluctantly, accommodate the need for national
differentiation and responsiveness. Goshal and
Westney (1993) contend in this respect that
the emerging dominant model of the MNC is
a combination of elements of both geocentrism
and polycentrism or, in their terminology, of
global and multidomestic strategies. These
authors envision an “ideal type” of this new
model of the MNC as having the following
characteristics (ibidem, p. 4–5):
• Dispersion of the MNC’s subunits and hence
its capacity to innovate and exploit techno-
logical innovation anywhere in the world;
• Interdependence of the subunits, which are
linked to each other and to the headquarters
through cross-flows of human and material
resources, with key activities performed
in the places that represent locational or
organizational advantage;
69
 – M B A
• Tight coupling of subunits in the face of glo-
bal competition, allowing the corporation
to respond to a competitive threat in one
market by actions in another market;
• Cross-unit learning through the capacity
to transfer competencies developed and
innovations originating in one part of the
corporation to its other parts and to adopt
and improve these competencies and inno-
vations in the process;
• Structural flexibility whereby organizational
process is more important than any spe-
cific organizational structure, facilitating
flexible management process, depending
on the product, country or even particular
decision.
In conclusion, it is hoped that this essay
has demonstrated the relevance and useful-
ness of the E.P.R.G framework (developed
by Perlmutter and Heenan) for the study of
the evolution of the multinational corpora-
tion management and strategy orientation. It
seems evident from the review of the various
conceptual and empirical works contained in
this essay that MNCs do move towards a geo-
centric orientation, albeit the road to such geo-
centrism is rather tortuous and many elements
of the polycentric or decentralized corporation
are being combined with that geocentric ori-
entation in the process. Transitorily, many of
the contemporary MNCs may be exhibiting a
regiocentric orientation, as evidenced by the
regional concentration of their sales and pro-
ductive assets.
70
5/ 2 0 0 8–
1
Also called the multinational enterprise (MNE) and transna-
tional corporation (TNC). The former term is predominantly
used in the international business field (see e.g. Dunning, 1993)
and the latter has been consistently used by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
2
Ghoshal and Westney (1993) lament that the study of the
MNC has not attracted much attention from organization
theorists, and argue that no paradigm from that theory has
had any major impact on the theory of the MNC.
3
See e.g. Rugman and Hodgetts (1995, p. 214–215); Hodgetts
and Luthns (1994, p. 131, 296 and 338); and Douglas and Craig
(1995, p. 28–29, 243–7, and 338–340).
4
The integration/responsiveness framework was introduced
by Bartlett (1986), refined by Prahalad and Doz (1987), and
has subsequently been used by many authors.
5
Teens: The Most Global Market of All. Fortune, May 16,
1994.
References
Adler, N. and Ghadar, F. (1990) Strategic Human Resource
Management: A Global Perspective. In: Pieper, R. (ed.), Hu-
man Resource Management: An International Comparison. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Aggarwal, R., Kearney, C. and Berrill, J. (2006) Classifying
MNCs in International Business: Implications for Research
Strategy and Design. In: Regional and National Drivers of Business
Location and Competitiveness, Conference Proceedings, 32nd EIBA
Annual Conference, University of Fribourg, Switzerland, 7–9
December.
Bartlett, C. (1986) Building and Managing the Transnational:
The New Organizational Challenge. In Porter, M.E., Com-
petition in Global Industries, Harvard Business School Press:
Boston, Mass.
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The
Transnational Solution. Boston, Mass.: The Free Press, Chapter
12, p. 367–401.
Chakravarthy, B.S. and Perlmutter, H.V. (1985) Strategic Plan-
ning for a Global Business. Columbia Journal of World Business,
Vol. 20 (Summer), p. 3–10.
Collinson, S. and Rugman, A.M. (2005) Japanese Business is
Regional, not Global. Unpublished working paper. Kelly School
of Business, Indiana University.
Doremus, P.N., Keller William W., Pauly, Louis W. and Reich,
Simon (1998). The Myth of the Global Corporation. Princeton
University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.
Douglass, S.P. and Craig, S.C. (1995) Global Marketing Strategy.
McGraw-Hill International Edition.
Douglas, S.P. and Wind, Y. (1987) The Myth of Globalization.
Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Winter), p.
19–29.
Dunning, John, H. (1997). Alliance Capitalism and Global
Business. London and New York: Routledge.
Dunning, J.H. (1996) The Nature of Transnational Cor-
porations and their Activities. In: Transnational Corporations
and World Development. Published by International Thomson
Business Press on behalf of UNCTAD, Division on Transna-
tional Corporations and Investment, United Nations.
 – M B A 5/ 2 0 0 8–

Dunning, J.H. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global No. 4, p. 409–417.
Economy. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Rugman, Alan M. (2004) Asian Business is Regional, not Glo-
Dunning, J.H. (1988). The New Style Multinationals – Circa bal. Paper presented at the Pacific Region Forum, Simon Fraser
the Late 1980s and Early 1990s. In: Dunning, J.H., Explai- University, Vancouver, Canada, November 26.
ning International Production. London, U.K.: HarperCollins Rugman, Alan M. (2005) The Regional Multinationals, Camb-
Academic. ridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Dunning, J.H., Fujita, M. and Yakova N. (2007) Some macro- Rugman, Alan M. and Hodgetts, Richard M. (1995) Internatio-
data on the regionalization/globalization debate: a comment on nal Business. A Strategic Management Approach. McGraw-Hill.
the Rugman/Verbeke analysis. Journal of International Business Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A. (2004a) A Perspective on Regional
Studies, Vol. 38, p. 177–199. and Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises, Journal of
Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. (1993). Horses for Courses: Or- International Business Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, p. 3–18.
ganizational Forms for Multinational Corporations. Sloan Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A. (2004b). Towards a Theory of
Management Review, Vol. 34, p. 23–35. Regional Multinationals: A Transaction Cost Economics Ap-
Ghoshal, S. and Westney, D. E. (eds) (1993) Organization Theory proach. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management
and the Multinational Corporation, Palgrave McMillan: Basingsto- Annual Conference, 30 August.
ke, Hampshire, and New York, N.Y. (Chapter 1. Introduction Sundaram, A. and Black, J.S. (1992) The Environment and
and Overview, p. 1–23). Internal Organization of Multinational Enterprises. Academy
Harzing, A-W. (2000) An Empirical Analysis and Extension of Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 729–57.
of the Bartlett and Ghoshal Typology of Multinational Com- Taylor, W. (1991) The Logic of Global Business: An Interview
panies. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, with ABB’s Percy Barnevik. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69,
p. 101–120. No. 4 (March-April), p. 91–105.
Hedlung, G. (1996). Organization and Management of Tolentino, Paz E. (2002) Hierarchical Pyramids and Hete-
Transnational Corporations in Practice and Research. In: rarchical Networks: Organisational Strategies and Structu-
Transnational Corporations and World Development. Published by res of Multinational Corporations and its Impact on World
International Thomson Business Press on behalf of UNCTAD, Development. Contributions to Political Economy, Vol. 21, No.
Division on Transnational Corporations and Investment, Uni- 1, p. 69–89.
ted Nations, p. 123–141. UNCTAD (2005) World Investment Report 2005. Transnatio-
Heenan, D. and Perlmutter, H. V. (1979). Multinational Orga- nal Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. United
nization Development: A Social Architecture Perspective, Addison- Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UN: New
Wesley: Reading, MA. York and Geneva.
Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (1994). International Manage-
ment. 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill.
Jansson, H. (2005) Internationalization Processes in the New
EU: Market Growth, Relocation, and Outsourcing. Paper
presented at the 7th Annual Conference on European Integration,
organized by the Swedish Network for European Studies in
Economics and Business (SNEE), Mölle, May 24–27.
Leong, S.W. and Tan, C.T. (1993) Managing Across Borders:
An Empirical Test of the Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) Organi-
zational Typology. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.
24, No. 3, p. 449–464.
Levitt, T. (1983) The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, p. 92–102.
Oh, C. and Rugman, A. (2006) Regional Sales of Multinatio-
nals in the World Cosmetics Industry. European Management
Journal, Vol. 24, Nos. 2–3, p. 163–173.
Perlmutter, H.V. (1969) The Tortuous Evolution of the Mul-
tinational Corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol.
4, Issue 1, p. 9–18.
Perlmutter, H.V. (1984) Building the Symbiotic Societal En-
terprise: A Social Architecture for the Future. World Futures,
Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 271–84.
Porter, M.E. (1986) Changing Patterns of International
Competition. California Management Review, Vol. 27 (Winter),
p. 9–40.
Prahalad, C.K. and Doz, Y.L. (1987) The Multinational Mission.
New York: Free Press.
Rugman, Alan M. (2003) Regional Strategy and the Demise
of Globalisation. Journal of International Management, Vol. 9,

71