调整全球化战略的5个好办法

    真正的全球化公司是否应该在所有的主要市场开展业务呢？我在金融危机前曾经发起过一项调查，结果，64%的受访者认同这个可疑的主张。一些公司仍然坚持这样一种观点，即全球化等同于无处不在。想一想通用汽车（GM）到目前为止对欧宝（Opel）的“不离不弃”吧，尽管它在欧洲可怕的过剩产能不大可能在短期内通过市场增长得到释放。通用汽车的市场份额在所有汽车制造商中排名第四，品牌形象较弱。即使欧宝能够在2015年实现其收支平衡的乐观目标，一些分析师估计，这家公司自2000年以来的亏损额累计将达200亿美元。然而，通用汽车的首席执行官丹•埃克森还是说：“欧宝是非卖品。”

    不过，很多公司在金融危机之后收缩了战线，这里指的并不仅仅是撤离希腊这些受困于经济衰退的市场。铃木（Suzuki）正在退出美国汽车市场，它在那里经营的时间已经接近30年。根据2012年的一项调查，进入中国市场的欧洲公司中有22%正在考虑撤离，其中电器零售商万得城（Media Markt）已经退出，就像家得宝（Home Depot）一样。针对财富世界100强企业的分析表明，这些公司最近呈现出一种减持其国际联营公司股份的趋势。

    不过，比这种趋势更加有趣的是各家公司正在采用的不同战略方针。聪明的公司会采取下面这些做法来收缩战线，调整全球市场战略：

    斩去枯枝。即使在金融危机之前，一项针对16家跨国公司内部财务数据的分析表明，其中8家公司拥有尾大不掉的区域业务单元——这些单元实现的营收最多占到公司总营收的四分之一——在把财务费用计算在内之后，它们反倒在摧毁价值（而不是产生价值）。金融危机之后，资本成本普遍变得更高，而经济增长预期普遍被调低。在这种情况下，公司应该斩去的“枯枝”变得愈发粗壮了。跨国公司开始以更加严苛的目光考察自身分布各国的生意，同时淘汰失利的业务。举例来说，雅芳公司（Avon）最近就已经宣布将退出韩国和越南市场。

    善用纽带。这种方法的理念在于，公司不仅仅根据财务业绩进行收缩，更要聚焦于这样一些国家，它们与公司的天然纽带能够帮助公司降低成本和复杂性。什么样的纽带能够简化业务流程呢？举例来说，据我估计，一个国家在另一个国家FDI（外国直接投资）中的占比会出现下面这些变化：如果两国官方语言相同，那么比例会增长60%；如果一国曾是另一国的殖民地，比例会增长将近275%；如果两国同为某个地区贸易协定的成员国，比例会增长30%；而国家间的地理距离每缩短一半，比例就会增长150%以上。印度制药公司瑞迪博士（Dr. Reddy's）利用一套模型将其二级市场的数量从36个缩减到了5个，这套模型会优先考虑与印度存在纽带（依照上述维度）的市场。

    Should the truly global company aim to compete in all major markets? 64% of the respondents to a survey I ran before the financial crisis agreed with this dubious proposition. Some companies still cling to this view of globality-as-ubiquity. Think of General Motors (GM) hanging on (so far) to Opel, despite horrible over-capacity in Europe that is unlikely to be filled any time soon by growth. GM ranks 4th on market share, and has a weak brand image. Even if Opel meets its optimistic target of break-even by mid-decade, some analysts estimate that its losses since 2000 will cumulate to $20 billion by then. Yet according to GM CEO Dan Akerson, "Opel is not for sale."

    But many companies have since pulled in their horns, and it's not just firms exiting recession-plagued markets like Greece. Suzuki is pulling out of the U.S. car market after almost three decades. According to a 2012 survey, 22% of European companies in China were considering exiting, and electronic retailer Media Markt has already left, as has Home Depot (HD). And analysis of the Fortune Global 100 indicates a recent tendency to reduce their equity stakes in their international affiliates.

    Even more interesting than this trend, though, are the various strategic approaches companies are employing. Here are five techniques smart companies are using to narrow their focus and adjust their global market strategies:

    Chopping deadwood. Even before the crisis, an analysis of internal financial data from 16 multinationals indicated that eight of them had large geographic units -- units bringing in as much as one-quarter of their revenues -- that destroyed value after accounting for their financing costs. Post-crisis, with generally higher capital costs and lower growth forecasts, the deadwood to be chopped should be even larger. Multinationals are starting to take a harder look at the P&Ls of their country businesses with an eye toward shedding the losers. Avon (AVP), for example, recently announced that it would exit South Korea and Vietnam.

    Manning the bridges. This is the idea of cutting back not just based on financial performance but to focus on sets of countries whose natural connections can help firms cut down on costs and complexity. What kinds of bridges ease business flows? Some examples: I estimate that one country's stock of FDI in another is boosted nearly 60% by a common official language, nearly 275% by a colony-colonizer link in their past, 30% by common membership in a regional trade agreement, and more than 150% by a halving of the geographic distance between them! Indian pharmaceutical firm Dr. Reddy's narrowed its secondary markets from 36 to 5 using a model that gave priority to markets sharing connections to India along such dimensions.