Cultural distance and entry modes: implications for global expansion strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to take a strategic perspective on how MNEs in the retail sector decide to enter a new market. Drawing on transaction cost theory, the contingency approach and resource-based theory, the implications of the interplay between global strategy, cultural distance and entry mode strategies are examined by means of an analysis of Carrefour’s global expansion. Design/methodology/approach – To account for the shortcomings of prior research, a hypothesis in the relationship between entry modes and cultural distance is tested empirically using a sample of 44 foreign market entries by Carrefour over the 40 last years. The paper uses a quantitative approach, i.e., logistic regressions. To measure cultural distance, the authors rely on the GLOBE dimensions and the Kogut-Singh Index. Findings – The findings suggest a positive relationship between a resource commitment, entry mode strategy and cultural distance for Carrefour. However, these findings are contrary to the mainstream argument that high cultural distance is related to entry strategies based on relatively low resource commitment. The authors explain these findings by integrating a cultural distance perspective with Carrefour’s overall global expansion strategy. Research limitations/implications – Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability. Practical implications – The paper provides insights into why prior research on cultural distance and entry modes has yielded mixed results. From a strategic viewpoint, the paper stresses the particularities of the retail sector and how retailers try to account for cultural distance in their entry mode decisions. Originality/value – By focussing on a single company instead of a meta-analysis, the analysis demonstrates how the search for strategic consistency and the particularities of the retail sector reverse a well-investigated theoretical assumption. The main originality of the paper is that it shows the implications of the interplay between cultural distance and entry mode as being part of the retail firm’s overall global expansion strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".