企業如何打入新興市場

How Companies Break into Emerging Markets
瀏覽人數:3258


影片載入中...
哈佛商學院教授塔倫.卡納(Tarun Khanna)解釋,多國籍企業如何在新興市場蓬勃發展。

莎拉.葛林:歡迎來到《哈佛商業評論》IdeaCast。我是莎拉.葛林。今天的來賓是哈佛商學院的塔倫.卡納,他是《贏得新興市場》的共同作者。塔倫,非常感謝你今天來上節目。

塔倫.卡納:謝謝你,莎拉。

莎拉.葛林:我們也許可以先談談你對新興市場的定義。因為有一些不太一樣的定義。

塔倫.卡納:我們很嚴肅看待「新興市場」這個詞。字面來看,它是指一個還不存在的市場,但正在成形之中。也就是說,它正在興起。我的意思是,它終究會成為市場。以雜貨超市為例。那是你去買東西的地方。因此,它必須想盡辦法把買方和賣方撮合在一起。

換句話說,它必須能告訴你那些日用雜貨的位置。賣雜貨的人,必須知道買家在哪裡。資訊是很重要的一環。最後,當你買到雜貨,把它放入袋子準備帶回家時,你應該抓緊它,你知道自己對剛買的那些雜貨擁有權利。你不希望有人搶走它。

這正是市場的本質。你需要資訊和財產權。我們對新興市場的定義是,這兩個條件中有任何一個條件的發展不足。這涵蓋了世界上大部分地區。因此,我們對新興市場有一個很結構化的定義。這不同於目前既有的一些定義,那些既有定義是正確的、描述性的,但有點流於表面。

換句話說,它們說新興市場是貧窮或快速成長的市場,或類似的東西。這其實沒有告訴你該如何處理它,只是指出它很貧窮,且成長快速。但我們的定義告訴你,它的結構是如此,有一些事情是有問題的,而你可以如何處理這些事情。

莎拉.葛林:這種結構式的焦點,是否要嘗試解決你提到的新興市場問題?但人們用這個詞來稱巴西、印度,以及其他許多國家。這些國家顯然彼此非常不同。但它們內部也有很多元的族群。

塔倫.卡納:是的,我們的想法是提供一種簡單的方式,可獲得特定地點的地圖。我們的立場是,大型新興市場有很多共同點。所謂「金磚四國」,或者可以加上南非、土耳其、印尼、墨西哥等地方。它們都充滿活力。它們有不同類型的問題,使得它們被歸入新興市場的行列。

所有這些國家都有一些共同點。但當然,就像你說的,在聖保羅經營企業,與在雅加達或北京經營企業截然不同。我們的結構式定義,可讓你了解這個結構的哪些面向,在這些地方是相同的,以及它們這個種類的地點,與紐約和倫敦的不同之處。

莎拉.葛林:你在書中談到了所謂的制度缺陷。這是你結構式定義的一部分嗎?

塔倫.卡納:是的,從某方面來說這是中心構想。有點拗口。但缺陷就是指欠缺的東西,對吧?假設有某個你認為理所當然的事物,譬如銀行。銀行似乎是個天經地義的東西。你和我若要把錢存進銀行,只要點擊滑鼠即可。或者走進去與櫃檯人員交談。或者我們可以去領錢或申辦貸款等。銀行是中介機構,介於資本購買者(想要使用資本的人),和資本出售者(也就是把錢存進銀行的人)之間。

說得簡單一點。現在,金融中介的基本功能在很多地方都無法運作,舉一個極端的例子,剛果民主共和國,或奈及利亞的部分地區,到處充斥暴力,或者在1990年代後期的亞洲金融危機期間,人們忙著領錢出來,因為擔心銀行的償付能力。或坦白說,在我們自己的國家,不久前人們也擔心銀行會倒閉。因此,銀行破產是債務資本市場制度缺陷的例子之一。制度缺陷就是指無效或有缺失的制度。

莎拉.葛林:你的意思是,不同的新興市場可能有不同的缺陷?這一點,是那些希望在這些市場中發展的企業必須注意的?

塔倫.卡納:是的,完全正確。不同的地方有不同的缺陷。所以,若說市場正在興起,這種說法沒有幫助。這是非常概括的描述,根據我與企業、創業者、投資人的合作經驗,這種描述不太能告訴他們星期一早上該做什麼。以韓國為例,按嚴格定義不算新興市場,按照國際金融公司的定義不算是,因為它是OECD國家。

但我要說的是,一直到最近,當地的股權資本市場始終運作不佳。另一方面,它的產品市場運作極好。智利是位於拉丁美洲的新興市場,問題正好相反。它的資本市場看起來確實不錯,產品市場則或許有些缺陷。因此,這真的要看個別情況而定。結構式定義的重點,是要先制定一份清楚的地圖,然後再做出重大的投資決策或管理決策。

莎拉.葛林:好,我要問第二個關於中介和缺陷的問題,就是你在書中提供一個很好的比喻,用來描述其中的某些東西。那就是企業處理這些挑戰的方式。你談到人們造訪那些國家的經歷。我想知道,你能否為我們稍微說明這個比喻,好讓大家更清楚了解。

塔倫.卡納:一個簡單的相關例子是,如果我想計畫橫跨美國的旅行。假設是像背包客學生那樣。我距離背包客學生的日子很久了,但如果我現在是背包客,我想我會上網,開始製作清單,列出我可以住的地方。這可以很簡單,像是便宜的露營地,也可能是高級飯店,一切取決於我的經濟能力。我也許會去租車公司租車。我可能會透過某些網路旅行社訂一些票。

換句話說,我會仰賴所有這些既有的中介機構。而且,所有中介都面臨競爭,迫使他們做好自己的工作。而且它們背後都有法規監管,以確保它們不會欺凌顧客。如果我選擇橫跨印度偏鄉、撒哈拉以南非洲地區,或拉丁美洲的安第斯山脈,因為它們的網路涵蓋範圍不是很多,所以我無法獲得這些資訊。一定也不會有Avis和Hertz汽車租賃公司,可隨時提供汽車給我,即使我是這些租車公司的高級會員。

可能也不會有太多可靠的航班。所有這些都是缺陷,會妨礙我的旅程像在美國那樣順利或有效率。這也意味,我必須花更多時間在這上面。我必須攜帶更多的裝備。我需要備案計畫。我要以完全不同的方式安排旅行。

莎拉.葛林:你提到曾與一些企業合作處理其中某些議題。能否舉一個企業的例子,來說明我們討論過的一些內容?

塔倫.卡納:當然,有很多很好的例子。例如,有家德國批發商,規模六百億歐元的Metro集團。它最大的事業部是Metro Cash and Carry。可以把它想成小型企業的山姆俱樂部會員店。它賣東西的對象,不是你和我這種個人消費者,而是賣給企業。我已經與他們合作五、六年,協助他們制定計畫,並在亞洲國家執行策略。

有趣的是,你必須平衡對兩邊的關注,一邊是調整擁有這些商店的模式,另一邊是建立供應鏈,把所需的商品和服務提供給顧客,供應給中國、印度、日本、越南、印尼等地方。你應採取在地化做法,以適應當地的制度缺陷。

但另一方面,你不能讓每個國家的Metro完全不同。因為這樣一來,在不同例子之間進行協調,就會與從德國杜塞道夫總部來協調大不相同。我們一直努力實現這種平衡。制度缺陷地圖是很簡單的定位點,可用於開始著手制定策略,並了解執行策略時會面臨的挑戰。

莎拉.葛林:你認為企業試圖進入新興市場時,犯下的最大錯誤是什麼?

塔倫.卡納:我想,迄今最常看見的情況,就是過分高估自己的經驗適用於新環境的程度。我認為,這是很人性化的反應。如果你是成功的高階主管,或者是在某個國家、地點或環境中的成功投資人,你很可能已經從這個過程中得到一些信心,正確地從這過程中得到一些信心。心理學家稱之為不同類型的偏誤,我認為可被稱為新近偏誤。你最近的經歷,導致你認為這很適合轉移應用到別處。你總是能看到這種情況。

人們認為,自己在某個地方激勵員工的方式,可用來在另一個地方激勵員工。在很抽象的層次,這可能是正確的。例如,每個人都喜歡被賞識。在這個層次,它當然適用於每個地方。但你表達賞識的方式可能完全不同,這取決於你能使用的薪酬形式,以及你可以使用與股權相關激勵措施的程度,相對於獲利共享的做法,而工會的限制,可能會在不同的地方出現。

因此,你愈接近星期一早上的現實,你就愈明白,「每個人都喜歡被賞識」這個抽象觀念,必須採取很不同的實施方式,這取決於制度環境。我認為,如果不能預先理解這些很堅固的差異,所謂堅固,我是指在大多數基本細節裡已存在數十年之久的環境差異,你就會被絆倒。

莎拉.葛林:好的,你提到了我們還沒有討論到的內容,因為我們一直在談論策略和執行。但你現在也提到了人的因素。

塔倫.卡納:是的,我認為人的因素是這整件事的基礎。最終,我們發現自己所置身的制度,是由人類創造的。它們是一點點歷史造成的結果。還有一點點的法規。一點點機緣。一點點刻意的設計。一點點偶然和實驗。一堆不同的東西加進來,人類調配各種東西,然後產生了自己所處的環境。

看看我們國家現在正在經歷什麼。有歐巴馬、醫療改革、重塑退休金計畫、擔憂勞動力老化。這些最終都是由人與人的互動來塑造制度,而這些制度促成、也限制了創業者的未來。同樣情況也出現在印度、南非、巴西等地。

莎拉.葛林:這些重要事項值得我們記住。塔倫,非常感謝你今天來上節目。

塔倫.卡納:謝謝,莎拉,我很感謝。

莎拉.葛林:今天的來賓是哈佛商學院教授塔倫.卡納,他的新書是《贏得新興市場:策略與執行路線圖》。更多內容請見hbr.org。


Tarun Khanna, Harvard Business School professor, explains how multinationals can thrive in emerging markets.

Sarah Green: Welcome to the Harvard Business Review IdeaCast. I'm Sarah Green. I'm here today with Harvard Business School's Tarun Cana Khanna, co-author of Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Tarun, thanks so much for being here today.

Tarun Khanna: Thank you, Sarah.

Sarah Green: So let's start with maybe your definition of what an emerging market is. Because there are some competing definitions.

Tarun Khanna: I think we take the term emerging market very seriously. That is, it literally is a market that isn't quite there yet, but is on the way to getting there. That is, it's emerging. What I mean by that is a market at the end of the day. Think of the grocery market. Is a place where you go to buy something. So it must do whatever it needs to do to get the buyer and seller together.

In other words, it must be able to inform you as to where the groceries are. And the sale of the groceries needs to know where the buyers are. So information is an important component. And finally, when you buy the groceries, and you put it in your bag and take it home, you ought to hang on to it and know that you have rights over the groceries that you just bought. You don't want somebody to grab them and run away with it.

And that's essentially what a market is. You need information and property rights. And what we define an emerging market to be, is any situation where either of those two items are underdeveloped. Which turns out to be most of the world. So we have a very structural definition of emerging markets. As opposed to the existing definitions out there, which are correct and descriptive, but a little bit tautological.

In other words, they say an emerging market is one that's poor or fast growing, or things like that. That doesn't really tell you what to do with it, other than noting that yes, it's poor and fast growing. Whereas our definition tells you, here is the structure, here are the things that are problematic, and here's what you do about each of these things.

Sarah Green: And is the structural focus an attempt to sort of solve the problem where you're talking about emerging markets? But that's a term that people use for Brazil, for India, for all these other countries. And those are obviously very different from each other. But they also have very diverse populations within them.

Tarun Khanna: Yes, the idea is to provide a simple way to get a map of a particular location. So our position would be that there are a lot of commonalities between the big emerging markets. The so called BRIC countries, or you add South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, places like that into it. They are all vibrant. That they all have different kinds of issues that put them into the bucket of emerging markets.

There are some commonalities across the class. But of course, as you pointed out, it's very different running a business in San Paulo, from one in Jakarta, or Beijing. And our structural definition allows you to understand what aspects of the structure are common across these places. As well as what's different across them as a class of locations from New York and London.

Sarah Green: Now you've talked in the book about something you call institutional voids. Is that part of your structural definition?

Tarun Khanna: Yes, that's a central construct in some sense. It's a bit of a mouthful. But a void is simply something that's missing, right? And so we say that if a particular thing that you take for granted, say a bank. A bank seems like such a natural thing to think about. You and I can deposit money in the bank with the click of a mouse. Or walk into and talk to a teller. Or we can withdraw money or take a loan, et cetera. That bank is an intermediary between buyers of capital-- people who want to use a capital-- and sellers of capital-- in other words, people who deposit money in the bank.

To keep it very simple. Now that elementary functions of financial intermediation doesn't work in many parts of—to pick an extreme example, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or even in parts of Nigeria when there is violence all around, or during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s when people were drawing money hand over fist, worrying about the solvency of the banks. Or frankly in our own neighborhood, not too long ago, when people are worried about banks failing. So the failure of the banks would be an example of an institutional void in the market for debt capital. So an institutional void is simply an institution that is void or missing.

Sarah Green: And are you saying that different emerging markets may have different voids? And that's something that businesses looking to grow in those markets need to be aware of?

Tarun Khanna: Yes, that's exactly correct. That voids are different in different places. And so it's not helpful to say that a market is emerging. It is a very aggregate description that – in my experience working with companies, and entrepreneurs, and investors, and so on – it doesn't really tell them what to do on Monday morning. Take Korea for example. It's not technically an emerging market by, say, the IFC definition, because it's an OECD country.

But I would say the market for equity capital, until very recently, has been very poorly functioning. On the other hand, its product markets are extremely well functioning. Chile on the other hand, which is an emerging market in Latin America, has the opposite issue. Which is its capital markets look really well, and its product markets and perhaps a bit more deficient. So it really depends. And the point of the structure definition is to get a very clear map before you make any big investment decisions or management decisions.

Sarah Green: Ok, so my second question to you on that issue of intermediaries and voids, is that in the book you have a good metaphor for describing some of the stuff. The way companies tackle these challenges. Which is you talk about the experience of people traveling to those countries. And I was wondering if you could maybe walk through that metaphor a little bit with us, sort of to just hammer this home.

Tarun Khanna: So a simple related example would be if I want to plan a trip across the United States. As a backpacking student, let's say. It's been awhile since I was a backpacking student, but if I that I were a backpacking student. I would simply go on the web I imagine. And to start to get a list of places that I could stay at. Which may be as simple as cheap-o camp grounds, to very high-end hotels, depending on my financial means. And I would perhaps go to a rental car agency, rent a car. I would go to some sort of web-based travel agency and book some tickets.

In other words, I would be relying on all these existing intermediaries. Which by the way, all have competition forcing them to do a good job. And they all have regulation in the background to make sure that they don't abuse their customers. Whereas if I were doing the same thing across rural India, or Sub-Saharan Africa, or the Andes Mountains in Latin America, why they wouldn't be very much web coverage to get me this information. There certainly wouldn't be Avis and Hertz car rental agencies standing by to give me cars at a moment's notice. Even if I had gold plated privileges in those companies.

And there probably wouldn't be too many flights that were reliable. So all of those would be voids that would prevent my journey from happening a smoothie or efficiently as it would happen in the United States. And that would mean that I would need to spend more time on it. I would need to be carrying much more equipment with me. I would need backup plans. And I would just organize my trip very differently.

Sarah Green: So you mentioned that you do work with companies on some of these issues. So can you give us maybe a company example that translates some of what we've talked about into the business side?

Tarun Khanna: Sure, lots of great examples. There is a German wholesaler which is, I want to say, a EUR 60 billion company metro group. Its biggest division is called Metro Cash and Carry. Think of it as Sam's Club for small businesses. So it doesn't sell to you and me, the individual consumer, It sells to businesses. I've been working with them now for five or six years, helping them to craft their plans and with the execution of their strategies across a range of Asian countries.

And what's interesting is that you have to balance the attention between adapting their model of having these stores, and building the supply chains to get the goods and services that they need to their customers. To each of China, India, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and places like that. You want to localize it to adapt to the institutional voids.

But on the other hand, you can't have Metro in each country be completely different. Because then coordinating across the different examples would be exceedingly different from headquarters in Dusseldorf in Germany. And so there's that balance that we constantly strive for. And the map of institutional voids is a very simple anchoring point, so to speak, for beginning that strategy formulation and understanding some of the challenges of executing it.

Sarah Green: So what is the biggest mistake you see companies making when they're trying to get into emerging markets?

extent to which their experience is going to be useful in a new context. And I think that's a very human response. If you're a successful senior executive, or a successful investor in one country, one location or one set of circumstances, chances are that you've gotten some confidence from that process, correctly gotten some confidence from that process. And there is what psychologists call biases of different sorts, I think they're called recency biases. The recency of your experiences leads you to think that that's going to transfer over very well. And you see that all the time.

People assume that the way they motivate employees in one place, is likely to be the way they would motivate people in another. And at a very abstract level, that might be true. For instance, everybody likes to be appreciated. And at the level, of course, it's true in every location. But the way you express that appreciation might be completely different depending on the forms of compensation that are available to you, the extent to which you could use equity linked incentives, versus profit sharing, the union restrictions that might kick in in different places.

And so the closer you get to Monday morning reality, the more you realize that the abstract idea that everybody likes to be appreciated, is going to have to be acted out very differently depending on the institutional circumstances. And I think failing to appreciate upfront that there are these very robust -- and by robust I mean several decades long differences in the context in the most nitty gritty things – is what trips people up.

Sarah Green: Ok, now you're touching on something that we haven't even gotten to, because we've been talking about strategy and execution. But you're talking about the human element too.

Tarun Khanna: Yes, the human element I think is the underpinning of the entire story. That ultimately the institutions that we find ourselves embedded in, are created by human beings. They are the result of a little bit of history. A little bit of regulation. A little bit of serendipity. A little bit of conscious design. A little bit of happenstance and experimentation. A bunch of different stuff that kicks in, and human beings concoct, and circumstance they find themselves in.

Look at what we are going through in our country right now. With Mr. Obama, and health care, and reshaping pension schemes, and worrying about an aging work force. These are all ultimately human interactions that shape the institutions that will be both enables and constraints for our entrepreneurs going forward. And the same is true in in India, South Africa, Brazil, et cetera.

Sarah Green: Something important to remember. Tarun, thanks so much for joining us today.

Tarun Khanna: Thank you, Sarah. I appreciate it.

Sarah Green: That's Harvard Business School Professor Tarun Khanna. And the book is Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. For more, go to hbr.org.



本篇文章主題全球策略