Search results

The case seeks to meet the following educational objectives: provide an understanding of the problems and opportunities faced by a company doing business in a rapidly expanding emerging market. Understand how the foreign environment and industry practices impinge on the company’s strategic conduct. Develop the ability to evaluate strategic internationalization decisions in light of considerations related to uncertainty, risk and commitment. Provide for the application of internationalization theories to a real case involving an emerging country company. Discuss new strategies for international market expansion.

This case study is about the strategic change of the Usaflex brand and how it impacted its national and international expansion. Usaflex is a Brazilian footwear company founded in 1998 and acquired in 2016 by a group of partners. The new managers started an accelerated process of national and international expansion. In the domestic market, the company adopted the franchise system and in the international market used licensed stores. In addition, the new management implemented a series of modifications, changing the positioning, design and product variety, as well as the communication strategy. This process took place in a highly negative context, with the domestic market suffering the impact of a strong recession and Brazilian footwear exports losing competitiveness in the international market.

The targeted audience of this case is undergraduate and MBA students of Business Management courses, specifically on International Business courses.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International Business.

This paper aims to investigate the divestment behavior of emerging market multinationals from Latin America – multilatinas – by examining how their foreign market entry decision impacts the likelihood of subsidiary divestment.

The hypotheses are tested using Cox’s proportional hazard rate model in a longitudinal database of Brazilian multinational companies established in 43 countries.

Results indicate that these subsidiaries can thrive in environments that bear similarities to their home country, being less likely to divest in institutionally weak countries. Contrary to developed country multinationals, these firms benefit from foreign entry decisions that entail handling partnerships abroad; thus, wholly-owned greenfield (WOGF) investments have a higher likelihood of being divested.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze foreign divestment from multilatinas, accounting for how entry mode strategy and host country institutions may impact these firms’ de-internationalization.

The purpose of this work is to explore what determines a country’s entrepreneurial environment attractiveness, by understanding how countries compare regarding their business environment and entrepreneurial opportunities and whether such aspects have changed over time.

Through a longitudinal country-level cluster analysis of business environments (years 2001 and 2016), this study captures changes in classification of both emerging and developed market economies throughout an attractiveness spectrum, from least to most attractive environments.

Interesting findings involve the difference in trajectories of emerging economies, such as India compared to the stagnation of Brazil, Argentina and South Korea in the 15-year period. The paper seeks to contribute to the debate on the attractiveness of the entrepreneurial environment beyond the simple notion of most and least economically developed countries by providing a framework for dynamic cross-country analysis of entrepreneurial environmental attractiveness that can be further explored, tested and expanded.

Main limitations relate to the non-exhaustive sample of countries and variables. Contributions are both academic and managerial: helping to fill important research gaps in international entrepreneurship, namely, environmental conditions, cross-country comparisons (Coombs et al., 2009) and the understanding of elements of the investment climate (Stern, 2002); and assisting managers, entrepreneurs and policymakers understand what defines a country’s entrepreneurial environment attractiveness to better evaluate potential locations for investment.

The originality of the paper lies in using cluster analysis in a longitudinal study of country attractiveness, as well as in advancing the debate of country attractiveness, by adding a temporal dimension (from factors that are less structural to more conjunctural) and a comparative dimension in a new cross-country comparison framework of analysis.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.