Management International Review

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 803–820 | Cite as

Mode Combinations and International Operations

Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Investigation
  • Gabriel R. G. Benito
  • Bent Petersen
  • Lawrence S. Welch
Focused Issue: 50 Years of MIR


  • An enduring characteristic of extant literature on foreign operation modes is its discrete choice approach, where companies are assumed to choose one among a small number of distinctive alternatives.

  • In this paper, detailed information about the operations of six Norwegian companies in three key markets (China, UK and USA) is used as the basis for an exploration of the extent to which, and how and why, companies combine clearly different foreign operation modes. We examine their use of foreign operation mode combinations within given value activities as well as within given countries.

  • The study reveals that companies tend to combine modes of operation; thereby producing unique foreign operation mode “packages” for given activities and/or countries, and that the packages are liable to be modified over time—providing a potentially important optional path for international expansion.

  • The data show considerable variation across cases; ranging from extensive use of mode combinations to a singular focus on a specific mode of operation. The study contributes to a refinement of our understanding of the path of internationalisation, and throws up a number of awkward theoretical questions about the process.


Entry modes Modes of operation Mode combination Case studies 


  1. Andersen, O. (1997). Internationalization and market entry mode: A review of theories and conceptual frameworks. Management International Review, 37(special issue 2), 27–42.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E., & Coughlan, A. T. (1987). International market entry and expansion via independent or integrated channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asmussen, C. G., Benito, G. R. G., & Petersen, B. (2009). Organizing foreign market activities: From entry mode choice to configuration decisions. International Business Review, 18(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, W. P., & Burgelman, R. A. (1996). Evolutionary perspectives on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 17(special issue, summer), 5–19.Google Scholar
  6. Benito, G. R. G. (1996). Ownership structures of Norwegian foreign subsidiaries in manufacturing. International Trade Journal, 10(2), 157–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benito, G. R. G. (2010). Norwegian outward FDI and its policy context. Columbia FDI Profiles, April 20, New York: Vale Columbia Center for Sustainable International Investment.Google Scholar
  8. Benito, G. R. G., Pedersen, T., & Petersen, B. (2005). Export channel dynamics: An empirical investigation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(3), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benito, G. R. G., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. (2009). Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1455–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benito, G. R. G., & Welch, L. S. (1994). Foreign market servicing: Beyond choice of entry mode. Journal of International Marketing, 2(2), 7–27.Google Scholar
  11. Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J.-F. (2007). Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3), 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Canabal, A., & White, G. O. III. (2008). Entry mode research: Past and future. International Business Review, 17(3), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caves, R. E., & Mehra, S. K. (1986). Entry of foreign multinationals into U.S. manufacturing industries. In M. E. Porter (Ed.), Competition in global industries (pp. 449–481). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, T., Pugh, D. S., & Mallory, G. (1997). The process of internationalization in the operating firm. International Business Review, 6(6), 605–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Davidson, W. H., & McFetridge, D. G. (1985). Key characteristics in the choice of international technology transfer mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 16(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(special issue, summer), 55–83.Google Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  20. Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. (1988). The multinational corporation degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of a transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4(2), 89–120.Google Scholar
  21. Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Designing and conducting case studies in international business research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & L. C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in international business (pp. 109–124). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Hashai, N., Asmussen, C. G., Benito, G. R. G., & Petersen, B. (2010). Technological knowledge intensity and entry mode diversity. Management International Review, 49(6), 659–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hennart, J.-F. (1982). A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hennart, J.-F. (1988). Upstream vertical integration in the world aluminum and tin industries: A comparative study of the choice between market and intrafirm coordination. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 9(3), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hennart, J.-F. (1993). Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4(4), 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hymer, S. 1960 [1976]. The international operations of national firms: A study of foreign direct investment. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Inkpen, A. C., & Currall, S. C. (2004). The coevoloution of trust, control, and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15(5), 586–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.,E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kogut, B. (2001). Methodological contributions in international business and the direction of academic research. In A. Rugman & T. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 785–817). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.Google Scholar
  34. Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luostarinen, R. K. (1979). Internationalization of the firm. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  36. Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 600–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Swoboda, B. (2010). Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice? Journal of International Management, 16(1), 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Pauwels, P., & Matthyssens, P. (2004). The architecture of multiple case study research in international business. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. L. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in international business (pp. 125–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Petersen, B., Benito, G. R. G., Welch, L. S., & Asmussen, C. G. (2008). Mode configuration diversity: A new perspective on foreign operation mode choice. In A. Y. Lewin, D. Griffith, S. T. Cavusgil, & G. T. M. Hult (Eds.), Thought leadership in advancing international business research (pp. 57–78). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  43. Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. (2002). Foreign operation mode combinations and internationalization. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petersen, B., Welch, L. S., & Benito, G. R. G. (2010). Managing the internalisation process. Management International Review, 50(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petersen, B., Welch, L. S., & Nielsen, K. V. (2001). Resource commitment to foreign markets: The establishment patterns of Danish firms in South-East Asian markets. In S. Gray, S. L. McGaughey, & W. R. Purcell (Eds.), Asia-Pacific issues in international business (pp. 7–27). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. (2009). The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2010). ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: Insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Root, F. R. (1964). Strategic Planning for Export Marketing. Copenhagen: Department of International Economics and Management, Paper series 6.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  50. Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tomassen, S., Welch, L. S., & Benito, G. R. G. (1998). Norwegian companies in India: Operation mode choice. Asian Journal of Business and Information Systems, 3(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  52. Welch, L. S., Benito, G. R. G., & Petersen, B. (2007). Foreign operation methods: Theory, analysis, strategy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Welch, L. S., & Luostarinen, R. K. (1988). Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management, 14(2), 36–64.Google Scholar
  54. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. (2004). Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 524–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel R. G. Benito
    • 1
  • Bent Petersen
    • 2
  • Lawrence S. Welch
    • 3
  1. 1.BI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway
  2. 2.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  3. 3.Melbourne Business SchoolCarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations