The Global Automobile Manufacturing Industry in 2007 - Assignment Example

344021 - Corporate and Global Strategy Section A Question 1: Using Ellis & Williams 4Cs framework (1995, P.107), analyse the global Automobile Manufacturing Industry in 2007. Your answer should address the following issues: Are the industry's products truly ‘global’, ‘local’ the same products in all markets? Are the industry's products becoming more global or less global? What are the key pressures facing MNEs in the Automobile industry today? (30 marks) According to Ellis and Williams (1995: 107), an industry will reach a stage of globalization when the developments at the level of the industry are moving towards convergence on a worldwide basis or the world as single market. In contrast, an industry reaches localisation when the world’s industry was made up of an integration of national industries. The competition can be observed in the national level and not world level. With the definitions of globalization and localization of Ellis and Williams, the automobile industry can be said to be global with the localization of national industries. In other words, in the globalization level, the national industries, such as Japanese car makers such as Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, etc., American car makers such as GM, Ford, and son, German car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, and so on are seen in an integrated level in the world market. Competition exists in each of the national level which can be said ‘localization’. For example, in Japan, local car makers face competition of foreign car makers who sell their cars in the market. Figure 1a. Top 15 motor vehicle producing countries 2006 Motor vehicle production (1000 units) Source: World Motor Vehicle Production by Country: 2005 - 2006. OICA Table 1a. World ranking of automobile manufactures Source: World motor vehicle production by manufacturer: World ranking 2006. OICA (July 2007) Referring to automotive industry in America, there are 14 car manufactures namely (1) General Motors, (2) Ford, (3) Daimler-Chrysler, (4) BMW, (5) Navistar, (6) Paccar-DAF, (7) Volvo, (8) Toyota, (9) Nissan, (10) Honda, (11) Fuji-Subaru, (12) Mazda, (13) Mitsubishi, and (14) Isuzu. The products of the car industry are becoming more ‘local’ and less ‘global’. For example, General Motors of the United States of America has its products marketed in the other countries. The products are specifically designed to meet the needs and tastes of the local customers (Table 2a). Table 2a. General Motors of United States of America Marque Country of origin Ownership Type of vehicle Main market 1. General Motors - 8926160 vehicles Buick The United States Division Near-luxury North America/China Cadillac The United States Division Luxury North America Chevrolet The United States Division Mainstream Global Daewoo South Korea Subsidiary Entry-level Asia/Europe (as Chevrolet) GMC The United States Division Truck North America Holden Australia Subsidiary Mainstream Australia/New Zealand/China/Middle East Hummer The United States Division Luxury Truck North America/Europe/Australia Opel Germany Subsidiary Mainstream Continental Europe Pontiac The United States Division Mainstream North America Saturn The United States Subsidiary Mainstream North America Saab Sweden Subsidiary Near-luxury Global Vauxhall United Kingdom Subsidiary Mainstream United Kingdom Source: World motor vehicle production by manufacturer: World ranking 2006. OICA (July 2007) Figure 1a: Four Cs Framework More over, Ellis and Williams (1995: 107) introduced their informing framework with which actual and emerging trends at the industry level can be assessed and determined the extent to which an industry is moving towards globalisation or localisation. They have developed the following framework adapted from Yip and Coundouriotis (1991) is known as their four Cs framework which can assist the task of assessing and determining an industry’s degree of globalisation and localisation. The framework identifies four different kinds of drivers which force an industry into a globalisation and localisation. These four set of drivers must be carefully analyzed in order to assess the trends. The four set of drivers are as follows: 1. Customers 2. Cost 3. Country 4. Competition Figure 1a. illustrates identified drivers of four Cs to collectively determine the extent to which an industry has been moving towards globalisation or localisation. First, customer drivers which include (1) customer requirements, (2) distribution, and (3) uniform marketing policies can be applied to a worldwide basis. Referring to customer requirements, it can be seen that some products might have been accepted in a worldwide level. When customers’ requirements have been converged into more standardised level, then it is highly likely that an industry can market its products to a standardised global market. In contrast, when the tastes and requirements for a product differ in local and global level, then the standardised product will not achieve the same level of customer acceptance. For example some foods such as rice and pasta have been globally accepted and they become standardised products. However, there are much more foods remain as unstandardised and they still need localised appeal and tastes. For example, Tomato ketchup in the UK is sweet, in France spicy and in the USA vinegary. For distribution drivers, the important role of distribution has been underestimated for the past years. Various distribution channels and the presence or absence of different types of intermediaries can be observed differently in various nations. This has resulted in preparing and arranging for different distribution channels in order to reach different customers in a timely manner. In this distribution, ‘push’ and ‘pull’ states are classified. When a product distribution is in a ‘push’ states, it means that the producers is pushing the product through the distribution channels to reach the intended customers and to attract the customers’ attentions. When the product is in a ‘pull’ state, it reflects to the situation in which a product is demanded by customers to reach the products in the market. In some countries, foreign product entry or penetration into a local market can face barriers and impediment. For example, in Japan, employees of the Japanese electronics companies are encouraged to take early retirement at the age of 55 and they could set up retail shop to sell their former employers’ products exclusively. This is so-called ‘pop and mum’ shops. This kind of national distribution makes foreign electronic products from US and Europe difficult to enter into the national market. Referring to the uniform marketing, the convergence of lifestyles may lead to a decision to use uniformity in the marketing approach in selling to different national markets. With the greater convergence of lifestyles, it is highly possible for an industry to market the product in a more uniformed way. Second, the cost drivers include (1) new product development, (2) scale economies, and (3) transportation costs. Many companies have made immerse investment in research and development for new product development due to technological sophistication of products increase. In addition, the firms compete to achieve high-volume sales in order to absorb the costs by producing economies of scale. The transportation cost is seen as a countervailing force to the trend towards globalisation. The costs of transporting low value products such as beer, bricks, building aggregates, etc. are remained localised, whereas high value to weigh products, for example, whisky, are not prevented the drinks industry becoming global. Thus the factor of the value to weight ratio is either assisting or preventing the onset of globalisation. In general, the transport costs tend to fall and less become important driver fro globalisation or localisation. Third, country drivers include (1) trade policies, (2) technical standards, and (3) cultural and regulatory barriers. While many countries are advocating trade liberalisation, some individual countries to have nationalistic trade policies. For example, China remains outside of the GATT framework. Product standardisation becomes more difficult with differences in the technical standards. For example, France, the UK and the USA have different requirement for the configuration of domestic electrical power supply which makes difficult for product standardisation more difficult. In addition, many companies face cultural and institutional barriers such as different norms in different countries for acceptable and unacceptable for advertising of a product. Finally, competitive drivers include (1) competitive interdependence, and (2) new entry competition. Firms may have expanded their geographical scope of the market, their competition in the national market become more interdependence. The entry of new competitors may have negative impacts on stability of an industry in local markets. With the four Cs framework, the General Motor of the United States of America can be assessed its trends towards globalisation and localisation as follows (Table 3a.). Table 3a. Globalisation and Localisation Trends of General Motors of United States of America Globalisation Localisation High Med Low Industry drivers Low Med High √ Customer drivers √ √ Customer requirements √ √ Distribution √ √ Marketing √ Cost drivers √ New product development √ Scale economies √ √ Transport costs √ √ Country drivers √ √ Trade policies √ √ Technical standards √ √ Cultural/regulatory barriers √ √ Competitive drivers √ √ Competitive interdependence √ √ Entry of new competitors √ In short, it can be observed that the automotive industry’s products are more local rather than global. In the American car industry, the manufactures are facing (1) local competition with foreign car manufactures from Japan and Germany and (2) ever increasing the needs of customers. Question 2: Using Michael Porter's National Diamond framework, assess the extent to which the American business environment contributed towards GM's success as a MNE. (20 marks) In the Porter’s diamond model, he argued that there are four interlinked advanced factors and activities in and between companies are found in these clusters. These interlinked factors are: (1) Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry, (2) Demand Conditions, (3) Related Supporting Industries, and (4) Factor Conditions. In his model, the role of government was seen as catalyst and challenger, encouraging companies to move to higher levels of competitive performance. Figure 1a. Porter’s Diamond Model Source: www.valuebasedmanagment.net With the remarkable records of annual production volume for 2006, and the second largest by sales volume as of the first half of 2007, behind Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation (GM) was known as the world’s largest auto company. Established in 1908 in Flint, Michigan, now the company has internationalization strategies to expand its market in global market. The company has now manufactured its cars and trucks in 33 countries. The products of GM are produced in the world under the brand-names of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden, Hummer, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. GM is currently the majority shareholder in GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. in Korea and has ventures with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation of China. When the U.S. economy was in the upward trend in the late 1990s, GM and Ford gained market share by selling their light trucks and sport-utility vehicles in the country. Between 2000 and 2001, when the Federal Reserve was to quell the stock market, the interest rate increase was in twelve successive years. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the company faced a severe impacts of stock market decline which caused a pension and benefit fund underfunding crisis. At that time, the GM has a good strategy of “Keep America Rolling” campaign. This campaign increased the sales volume and other auto-makers had to follow the suit. With its clear vision, the investement strategy of General Motors resulted in a $17.1 billion surplus in 2007, a $101 billion U.S pension fund portfolio, and a $35 billion reversal from its $17.8 billion of underfunding. In 2004, (1) the refurbishment of their light trucks as well as (2) SUVs for introduction of 2007 models in early 2006 were the results of its redirected resources from the development of new sedans. With the effect of fuel price increase, GM claimed that its hybrid-trucks will have 25% gas-mileage improvement. It has another strategy to closely link GM and its vehicle brands. The company has another pricing strategy to label its products as lowest prices as possible. With the strategy, the company could clear up inventory of 2005 models and paved the way for its 2006 lineup. In addition, the company has ‘no haggle sticker policy’. This policy make all vehicle prices are lowered and incentives are reduced or, in some cases they are eliminated. The company structured its self as follows: (1) GM Automotive GMAP - Asia Pacific GME - Europe GMLAAM - Latin America Africa Mid-East GMNA - North America (2) GMAC Finance and insurance services (3) Other Operations Each of the GM’s automotive divisions are responsible for targeted specific market segments. However they distinguish themselves with “stablemates” with unique styling and technology. Such company structure benefited the entire GM company because of sheared components and common corporate management with economies of scale. However the distinctions between the divisions gave an orderly upgrade path in which an entry-level buyer may start with a practical and economical brand of Chevrolet and in later stage the buyer may move to purchase products of different divisions such as Cadillac. The division may not compete one another but pass customer to another division if he wants a new GM product. GM has its skills of management and labor in the automotive industry. Since the establishment in 1908, GM has been a leader in product innovation and creation of state-of-the-art technology. Now GM is in a lead position to introduce the ‘hybrid initiative’. In 2004, world full sized pickups, the first of its kind, was delivered by GM. In the same year, it also introduced a hybrid passenger car. In 2005, Hybrid concept vehicle under the brand name of Opel Astra was introduced. In 2006, the first hybrid passenger under the brand name of Saturn VUE Green Line was introduced. Thus, GM has new hybrid technologies and now it has been introduced in the market. In 2007, GM announced that the future hybrid are (1) the 2007 GMC Yukon, (2) the Saturn Aura, and (3) an updated Saturn VUE based an Opel design like the Saturn Aura. GM has recently introduced the concept Chevrolet Volt which is a plug-in hybrid. Recently, GM has two types of hybrid systems, namely “Mild Hybrid or BAS System” and “two-mode” hybrid. Mild hybrid or BAS system was used in Silverado Hybrid, Saturn VUE, Saturn Aura, and Chevrolet Malibu. The other hybrid was used by the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon and will later be used on the Saturn VUE. GM has another hydrogen initiative with which the company planned to introduce hydrogen powered vehicles in early 2010. In addition, GM produced Flexfuel vehicles. They operate on ethanol gasoline, or E85. So far, GM has produced over 2 million FlexFuel Vehicles in all 50 states. In short, GM with distinguished (1) Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry, (2) Demand Conditions, (3) Related Supporting Industries, and (4) Factor Conditions, the company has contributed to the America’s competitive advantage. Their contribution of clusters of factors is also linked to the government as a catalyst. Question 3: Identify, analyse and critically evaluate each of GM's key stages of internationalisation from 1908 onwards. Link internal and external internationalisation triggers and methods to each stage. (30 marks) Figure 3a. Internationalization of General Motor Company It can observed that the GM company has been making efforts in internalization in continents of the world. It has been marketing in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia/Oceania. The company has grasped the market shares in those continents. The methods of internationalization were to assign the each divisions of the company responsible for entering the market. Under the each division, selected brand names or all of the brand names were marketed in specific country. The customers’ needs are different for different market. Strategies for internationalization can be observed. GM is one of the world leading companies and it was ranked as one in the automotive industry. However similar to other US corporations, GM encountered the problems of organizational, financial, productive, and competitive problems during the 1980s, with strong market penetration by Japanese firms. This situations have forced GM to reconsider its strategies in costs reduction in production, plants, and company employment in the USA (Clarrillo, 2004). Between 1985 and 1988, the output of the GM products decreased from 9.06 to 7.74 million units. Though GM still maintained its leading position in the automotive industry. In 1990, GM improved its finances through a broad restructuring program with a major focus on cost reduction. According to Bordenave and Lung ( 2002), the main features of this restructuring included: (a) alliances with other auto companies, aimed at extending GM’s product line and markets, and improving technology; (b) industrial modernization through the adoption of new technologies, automation of production processes, and introduction of new production methods based on functional flexibility, work teams, and quality circles; (c) reductions in the number of models offered and specialization of production among final assembly plants, and auto parts divisions; and (d) a reduction in the number of suppliers worldwide. In the mid-1990s, it was necessary for the global reorganization became necessary for GM in the mid-1990s. The changes were due to the previous strategies designed to reduce costs with emphasis on reducing labor costs. In 1960s and 1970s, GM had factories closures and reduced number of workers in the northern and Midwestern regions of the USA. However it opened plants in the southern “right-to-work” states. In the late 1970s, GM had located plants in the regions where labor was available with cheaper costs. GM favors some Latin American countries, and especially Mexico. In 1986, GM employed 52,000 workers in final assembly and maquiladora plants, and its production reached more than 600,000 engines and 200,000 vehicles. GM has also made developments in strategies related to its suppliers. While reducing its own wage bill, one of the GM’s key cost saving strategies was to reduce the number of its suppliers while developing the “survivors”. The main focus of this policy is to re-modify the type of relationships between GM and its suppliers worldwide, in order to optimize this relationship and lowering costs. With the strategies, the three problems which were overlapping were addressed. First, GM faced component purchasing in one of the company’s main runaway expenditures in the USA. Second, GM had subsidiaries which produced 70 percent of all the components that were used in their vehicles in the USA. Finally, the company faced massive losses in North America. By implementing its supply chain strategies by paring its supply chain, GM had saved between $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion between 1992 and 1995 (Gonza´lez 1996). GM also reduced the worldwide manufacturing costs of the company’s parts suppliers as much as possible. On the one hand, GM required its suppliers to compete with their foreign counterparts. Their competition is based on quality, price, and services. This system had crated higher demand fo international coordination of auto parts. GM assisted its suppliers by identifying the areas where waste occurred most and those areas with high and unjustified costs. The main idea is that the suppliers’ survival depends on their ability to operate their business in the globalization context. Particularly in the NAFTA region, the suppliers faced more competition for balanced commercial exchange, reduced the number of suppliers with whom they had contract, and ensured their production become economical. Above all, this strategy calls for externalizing auto parts, and maintaining final assembly and production of engines within the company. With this strategy, GM had gradually isolated its parts divisions before turning around quickly into Delphi in 1998. Before its sale, GM requested Delphi to operate as an independent company. Delphi was required to compete for contracts based on price, quality, and delivery time, rather than the relationship with Delphi as family company. In the mid-1990s, GM incorporated its many auto parts companies into a single firm, namely Delphi Automotive Systems (now renamed as Delphi), the largest global player in this highly fragmented industry (Lara and Carrillo, 2003). Source: http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/ Section B: Question 1: MNE and FDI activity in the Czech Republic (apply the MNE/FDI theory covered on the module and use YOUR experiences in Czech and the companies that you visited in Czech as examples to highlight your answers) Based on my residential trip to Prague, Czech Republic in March this year, I would like to address the current MNE and FDI activity in the country. I have observed that the Czech Republic is a high income country with a gross national income per capital of $11,100 (World Bank, 2007). Becoming a member state of the European Union (EU) in May 2004, the country has achieved one of the highest income levels among the new member states. Since 2004, the country has made structural economic reform including transition from centrally planned to market driven economy. This has led the country for convergence with EU income levels. The country is experiencing economic developments which are highly favourable to all international investors. The noticeable developments, I have observed, include (1) a strong recovery in growth, (2) significant fiscal consolidation, (3) low inflation, and (4) strong balance of payments. Among other countries in the region, I found an impressive figure of inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI) to be the highest valued. This large inflow of foreign direct investment has contributed significantly into the economy’s strength. The stock of FDI in the country accounted to about 50 percent of the country’s GDP. However one thing I noticed was that even though the country experienced favourable economic performance, the country’s long-term unemployment still remained high. To solve this problem, I feel that the country needs to formulate strategies and polices to encourage spending more and must effectively plan for the aging people. Table 1b. Key economic indicators for Czech Republic    2005 Population, total (millions) 10.2 Population growth (annual %) 0.3 Life expectancy at birth, female (years) 79.1 Life expectancy at birth, male (years) 72.9 Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population) .. GDP (current US$) (billions) 124.36 GDP growth (annual %) 6.1 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 11220 Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) 1.8 Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) 4.1 Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) 8.3 Time required to start a business (days) 40 Internet users (per 1,000 people) 269 Source: World Development Indicators (2006) If I had to look back to have more complete picture of the growth, I would say that the country’s economic growth is characterized by considerable FDI inflows. The FDI inflows were halted before which resumed in year 2000 due to significant and costly financial and institutional reforms. Since then, annual GDP growth was observed as from 2 to 6 percent. My observation was that the Czech Republic reached foreign direct investment (FDI) accounted fro 9 percent of GDP. I also found that this was mainly contributed by the expansion of export-driven manufacturing production, and foreign direct investment. Figure 1b. Annual GDP Growth of Czech Republic Source: World Bank (2007) To be more specific, the real GDP growth exceed 6 percent in year 2005 which was mainly driven by very strong net exports especially due to foreign direct investment in the automotive sector. However the private consumption growth remained weak as well as real gross disposable income growth is weak. Labor market was boosted due to upswing in economic activity which lowered the unemployment rate. The rate was observed as low as 8 percent in 2005. However the long-term rate seemed to be still high. I also observed the fiscal deficit which was reduced to lower than 3 percent in the year 2004-05, but it was expected to increase in 2006-07. Due to strong revenues, low absorption of EU funds, and carrying-over of unspent funds, the government deficit declined to 2.6 percent of GDP. In 2006, the deficit was declined due to tax cuts and increased social spending. The country is experiencing challenges a head. Some important issues include: (1) taking actions for long term sustainable public finance reforms in health and pension systems; (2) facilitating the functioning of the labor market in order to increase mobility; (3) improving business environment; and (4) continuing till complete restructuring and privatization of major enterprises. To attract foreign Improving business environment is noticeable. It was found that the country has attractive policies for protecting investors. Three dimensions of investor protection was found in (1) transparency of transactions (Extent of Disclosure Index), (2) liability for self-dealing (Extent of Director Liability Index), (3) shareholders’ ability to sue officers and directors for misconduct (Ease of Shareholder Suits Index) and Strength of Investor Protection Index. It was found that except the disclosure index, all other indices which capture the country’s business environment improvement are placed above the regional average values. Table 2b. Indicators for improving business environment in Czech Republic Indicator Czech Republic Region OECD Disclosure Index 2 4.7 6.3 Director Liability Index 5 3.8 5.0 Shareholder Suits Index 8 6.0 6.6 Investor Protection Index 5.0 4.8 6.0 Note: The indexes vary between 0 and 10, with higher values indicating greater disclosure, greater liability of directors, greater powers of shareholders to challenge the transaction, and better investor protection Source: World Bank (2007) Second, the following table 3b shows a medium-sized company must pay or withhold in a year, number of payments made by an entrepreneur, the number of hours for preparing, filing and paying, and the percentage of the profits they must pay in taxes. Table 3b. Annual GDP Growth of Czech Republic Indicator Czech Republic Region OECD Payments (number) 14 50.0 15.3 Time (hours) 930 423.0 202.9 Profit tax (%) 0.0 11.7 20.7 Labor tax and contributions (%) 40.6 30.6 23.7 Other taxes (%) 8.4 13.7 3.5 Total tax rate (% profit) 49.0 56.0 47.8 Source: World Bank (2007) Question 2: National Competitive Advantage of the Czech Republic (apply Porter's National Diamond model and use YOUR experiences in Czech and the companies that you visited in Czech as examples to highlight your answers) A nation’s competitive position in the global environment can be assessed by a well-known model proposed by Michael Porter. His model clearly depicts a nation’s competitive advantage and most suitably used for geographic regions. In economic theories, factors contributing to a nation’s competitive position are (1) land, (2) location, (3) national resources (minerals, energy), (4) labor and (5) local population size. Viewing only these factors provide a passive or inherited view of a competitive position. In the Porter’s diamond model, he argued that there are four interlinked advanced factors and activities in and between companies are found in these clusters. These interlinked factors are: (1) Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry, (2) Demand Conditions, (3) Related Supporting Industries, and (4) Factor Conditions. In his model, the role of government was seen as catalyst and challenger, encouraging companies to move to higher levels of competitive performance. Figure 2b. Porter’s Diamond Model Source: www.valuebasedmanagment.net I had visited two companies in Czech Republic, which were namely (1) Skoda Automotive Company and (2) Royal Brewery of Krušovice. I could see and understand how these two companies contributed to the competitive advantage of the country Czech Republic. Most importantly, the government of Czech Republic acted as a catalyst which encourage and improve the business environment. Regarding (1) firm strategy, structure, and rivalry, (2) demands as well as (3) related supporting industries, I observed that both firm are facing local and global competition. Skoda Auto Company has more product innovation by employing state-of-the-art technology. In addition the innovation of the company tried to ensure that the products meet real needs of customers. The firm has strategies of educating its products through Skoda Museum to Skoda University. Its product innovation was aimed at “the Skoda design studies materialize ideas of new forms and functions of a compact car for Škoda’s future customers and outline the future development of familiar design elements from Škoda Auto”. Similar to Skoda Auto, Royal Brewery of Krušovice was established in 1517, Krušovice beer is available on tap in thousands of pubs and prestigious restaurants. To maintain its position in the market, the firm has undergone the reconstruction including large dimensioned CK tanks, new filling lines for bottles, barrels and cans, highly efficient waste water cleaners, and new brewing facilities. These led the company to be in a position of one of the modern producers of brandname beers in the Czech Republic. With a sale record of over 1 million hectoliters of beer for the first time in 1997, the Královský Krušovice Brewery is presently ranked 5th amongst producers of beer in the Czech Republic. It has created an image of 'a Czech beer fit for Kings'. Regarding the factor conditions, I found that both companies possess specialized skills. The Královský Krušovice Brewery’s high quality products were improved over the passage of time through the work of generations of Krušovice Brewing Masters with the help of the most modern and state-of-the-art technology. The Škoda’s production and innovation are due to the skilful designers and innovative and creative management team. It was evidenced with the most a series of award for its excellence awards, namely Best cars 2007, Manager of the Year 2006, Car of the Year 2007, Family Car of the Year 2006 – 2007, Best Looking Car in the World 2006, Red Dot 2006, Auto Trophy 2006, 1st Place in Czech Top 100 (2000 – 2006), and Czech Exporter of the Year (1993 – 2006). In short, with the Porter’s Diamond model, I have gained depth understanding of how these companies have contributed the nation’s competitive advantage. References: (1) Skoda Automotive Company. http://new.skoda-auto.com/COM/Pages/Home.aspx (2) Royal Brewery of Krušovice Company. http://www.krusovice.cz/en/ (3) Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage Of Nations. Harvard BusinessReview, March-April, pp. 73-91. (4) Ellics and Williams. Assessing the internationalisation of industries: globalisation v localisation (5) Carrillo, Jorge. 2004. Transnational strategies and regional development: The case of GM and Delphi in Mexico. Industry and Innovation, Volume 11, Numbers 1/2, 127–153, March/June 2004 (6) www.valuebasedmanagment.net (7) World Bank. 2007. www.worldbank.org (8) World Development Indicator. 2006. (9) World ranking 2006. OICA (July 2007) (10) G.S. Yip, and G.A. Coundouriotis. 1991. Industry Study: Diagnosing Global Strategy Potential: The World Chocolate Confectionery Industry. Planning Review, January-February, pp. 4-14. (11) Bordenave, G. and Lung, Y. 2002. The Twin Internationalization Strategies of US Carmakers GM and Ford, IFREDE-E3i, Universite´ Montesquieu Bordeaux IV, Bordeaux (Working Paper 2002–1). (12) Gonza´lez, S. 1996: Estrategia corporativa y operacio´n local en las principales empresas automotrices instaladas en la zona de Toluca, Research Report. Toluca: Universidad Auto´noma del Estado de Me´xico, January. (13) Delphi Automotive Systems 1996: Documento interno, Juarez, Me´xico. (14) Carrillo, J. 1995. Flexible production in the auto sector: industrial reorganization at Ford-Mexico, World Development, 23(1): 87–101. (15) Lara, A. and Carrillo, J. 2003: Technological globalization and intra-company coordination in the automotive sector: the case of Delphi-Mexico, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 3(1/2): 101–121. Read More