Entry Mode Selection, Location Choice and the Sequence of Internationalization: A Case Study on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to increase of a good numbers of multinationals firms from emerging economies, researchers’ attention have been paid toward understanding the internationalization sequence of these companies. For making the internationalization process successful, multinational enterprises (MNE) make some strategic decisions like entry modes selection, site selection very carefully and delicately. Since, pharmaceutical industry in India has been growing rapidly and achieved the recognition of the world as a high quality manufacturer at low cost, it is the interest of researchers to investigate how Indian emerging multinationals are taking decisions in case of entry mode selection and location choice. In this regard, Indian Multinational enterprise ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited’ is an ideal case to study because it has developed its capabilities to compete against incumbent MNEs by using different motives, entry strategies and locations advantages. In this case study, relevant foreign direct investment (FDI) literature and other secondary sources have been used to analyze the strategies used in case of locations choice and entry modes selection for Ranbaxy’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI). It has been observed that in case of location choices and entry modes selection, decisions varied significantly for different regulated markets. Initially, Ranbaxy entered into Africa and Asian market and after gaining experiences and knowledge from there it moved to USA and Europe. The study reveals that Ranbaxy has chosen entry mode as ‘acquisition’ for USA and European market basically to overcome made-in-India image, credibility issues and quality concern. Furthermore, Ranbaxy offered their product and services more confidently as a guarantor of quality and safety standards due to acquisition strategy. Since, most of the European and North American markets were regulated and Ranbaxy entered these markets using unique entry modes. On the other hand, Asian and African markets were unregulated and entry modes were different from regulated markets. Ranbaxy entered first into the unregulated markets then moved to the regulated markets. For different segments Ranbaxy were driven by different motives. Thus, company developed experience and expertise from different markets. Apart from this, company found various types of capability handicaps in different markets and responded accordingly to overcome these handicaps. Consequently, these sequential developments have been transformed into ownership specific advantages for Ranbaxy’s case. Considering extant strength and capabilities of Ranbaxy, market seeking motive could be the stimulating factor for Ranbaxy’s next expansion for maintaining sustainable growth and position in the international market. European countries like Cyprus and Greece could be the location choice for next market expansion. In case of choosing European countries, Ranbaxy could minimize psychic distance, technological, economical, and institutional and location distance as it has strong local image in the European countries
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".