Disponível em 19 livrarias

ebookscfeguatemala 🇺🇸 Visitar loja →

Bajalibros Latam 🇺🇸 Visitar loja →

LORANCHBOOKSTORE 🇺🇸 Visitar loja →

Sobre este livro

The past two years have brought forth several aspects of international business. The more common elements that have unraveled include-complex supply chains, the impact of lockdowns in one region affecting production in another part of the world, and sanctions on one nation leading to shortages or crisis across multiple countries. Given the nature, scale and complexity of risks, does it even make sense for a business to operate beyond its national boundaries? Or, in the case of large countries, for a company to operate beyond their geographical area of origin? In India, we have multinational corporations who have thrived successfully, and we have Indian companies which have done rather well internationally. But what if mis-timed market entry, introducing the wrong product or service, noncompliance with Laws of the Land lead to failure of international expansion of a business? The terms "local" and "glocal" were often used nearly a decade ago, as companies began to customize products or services that are tailored to the a particular market. Automotive companies from Korea and Japan have done rather well in India using this approach. In contrast, why have US-based carmakers struggled in the Indian market? If conducting business across geographies was complex before, then it has become more complicated today. In the olden times, some of the risks to factor in while trading across nations were lack of communication, unpredictable weather, piracy, wars, and strife. In recent years, these risks have taken the form of increased regulations, trade blocks, restrictions in the forms of sanctions, IP theft, and forced nationalization. Does hypothesis is that "International Business is a good approach for a business to grow" still hold merit in today's scenario?