The Relationship between International Diversification and

Global Brand Value: Is It Linear? One Way? Country-of-Origin

Dependent?
Jin-Woo Kim, University of Texas at Arlington

ABSTRACT

The study addresses three questions: Is the relationship between firms’ internationalization and global
brand value linear or non-linear? Is higher global brand value associated with higher diversified opera-
tion and vice versa? Is the relationship between higher global brand value and international diversifica-
tion more salient in case of U.S. companies? In order to find answers to these questions, the authors in-
vestigate the association between global market expansion and global brand power. The study provides
evidence that the two variables mutually benefit each other. Although there is an unclear association
between internationalization and global brand value in non-U.S. companies, U.S. companies may hurt
their global brand value when they try to increase their diversification. Global brand value can drive
firms to diversify international operations, but it cannot always boost market expansion. Compared to
non-U.S. firms, U.S. companies generate a non-linear relationship between global brand and interna-
tional diversification and vice versa. The findings indicate that the relationship between foreign sales
ratio and global brand value is significant. In the results, global brand value is positively related to in-
ternational diversification, indicating that higher global brand value results in more diversified interna-
tional operations.

Introduction nationalization and global brand value. Based on

A firm’s survival is increasingly becomes
becoming more dependent on its ability to cope
with the high levels of complexity in global com-
petition (Sanders and Carpenter 1998). Market
globalization drives firms to pursue for achieving
efficiency in terms of current operations, manag-
ing risks, and innovation learning innovation
and adaptation (Ghoshal 1987). International
diversification can be considered an alternative
way of expanding competitive advantages and
the market basis at a marginal cost.
In this stream, prior research has ad-
dressed the nature of the drivers and outcomes
of internationalization. The international diver-
sification performance literature has been domi-
nated by accounting-based measures such as
ROA (return on asset), Tobin’s Q, ROE (return
on equity), ROI (return on investment), and
ROS (return on sales) (Lu and Beamish 2004;
Thomas 2006). Little attention has been paid to
uncovering the issues related to the synergy ef-
fect or mutually beneficial relationship between
international operations and firms’ intangible
marketing assets.
Motivated by this research gap, this
study strives to link international operation is-
sues to marketing variables by examining the
mutual relationship between the degree of inter-
a literature review, a conceptual framework is
developed and empirical testing is conducted to
examine the mutual relationship between inter-
national diversification and global brand equity.
Then, a discussion about research findings and
their implication is followed by the empirical
study conducted in this research.
Background and Research Interests
The current study addresses intangible
marketing asset as a driver and an outcome of
geographical market expansion. The authors
investigate the mutual relationship between the
degree of internationalization of firms and global
brand value. This section provides theoretical
background for the research model, which links
international diversification to global brand
value and vice versa.
Global Brands as an Outcome of Interna-
tional Diversification
Outcomes of international diversifica-
tion have mainly been measured by the account-
ing performance index. Characteristics of inter-
national diversification can moderate the rela-
tionship between drivers and outcomes of inter-
national diversification. Other environmental
factors and organizational characteristics may
influence organizations’ performance when it

The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1 17

comes to international diversification (Hitt, Ti-
hanyi, Miller, and Connelly 2006). The out-
comes of international diversification have
mainly been examined in terms of financial or
accounting performance (Roth and Morrison
1990; Markides and Ittner 1994; Doukas and
L.H.P. 2003).
Lu and Beamish (2004) synthesized
prior research on geographic diversification and
firm performance and investigated the underly-
ing rationale for inconsistent empirical findings
on this relationship. Proposing a theoretical
model for the study of multinationality and its
performance, they examine both benefits and
costs of geographic expansion over different
phases of internationalization. They show that
the relationship between the benefits and costs
of internationalization results in a smooth S-
curve that identifies three distinct phases in the
relationship between internationalization and
performance. First, it shows a performance de-
cline with increasing internationalization; then it
produces a positive relationship between in-
creasing geographic diversification and firm per-
formance. Finally, the performance declines at
very high levels of multinationality.
Given this, international diversification
creates a sustainable competitive advantage for
future growth. Prior research on international
diversification focused on accounting perform-
ance, but paid little attentions to intermediary
outcomes such as marketing variables, including
global brand equity. Specifically, global brand
value can be a marketing-related consequence of
international diversification. Therefore, interna-
tional diversification can form strategic founda-
tions that create favorable brand image, increas-
ing an organization’s sustainable competitive
advantage.
Global Brand value as a Driver of Inter-
national Diversification
Scholars of international business have
focused on cultural and political antecedents
with respect to international diversification is-
sues. A comprehensive framework of interna-
tional diversification indicates that antecedents
of international diversification include TMT (top
management team) characteristics, board com-
position, organizational structure and size, own-
ership strategic elements, and processes and
resources. In contrast, recent research has begun
to pay attention to strategic resources and or-
ganizational processes as predictors, and focuses
18 The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1
on institutional pressures, including regulatory,
cognitive, and normative elements, as well as
how these pressures influence a firm’s decisions
related to international diversification (Hitt, Ti-
hanyi, Miller, and Connelly 2006).
In general, the difficulties of interna-
tionalization involve loss of advantage, creation
of disadvantage, and lack of complementary re-
sources due to uncertainty (Cuervo-Cazurra, Ma-
loney, and Manrakhan 2007). In order to over-
come these problems and accomplish strategic
objectives, firms take advantage of national dif-
ferences, scale economies, and scope economies.
Specific sources of competitive advantage that
are employed should be based on firms’ physical
assets, external relations, and learning. In par-
ticular, sources of scope economies include
product diversification and market diversifica-
tion. Global brand names such as Coca-Cola can
be shared as a unique physical strength all over
the world, indicating that the marketing variable
can influence firms’ international operations and
diversification (Ghoshal 1987).
There has been significant interest
among academics and practitioners in under-
standing brand equity (Keller and Lehmann
2006). Srivastava and his colleagues (1998) de-
veloped a conceptual framework that makes ex-
plicit the contribution of marketing to share-
holder value. From the perspectives of market-
based asset theory, customer equity theory,
brand equity theory, and product life time value
theory, it starts with the basic assumption that
marketing activities create financial value. These
market-based assets influence shareholder value
by accelerating and enhancing cash flows, reduc-
ing the risks of cash flows, and increasing the
value of cash flows. This theory includes nine
propositions on how marketing creates share-
holder value, including the impact of brand eq-
uity, customer equity, customer satisfaction,
R&D (research and development), and product
equity, and discusses the effect of specific mar-
keting-mix actions on a firm’s value (Srinivasan
and Hanssens 2009; Chan Loise, Josef, and
Sougiannis 2001; Eberhart, Maxwell, and Sid-
dique 2004; Fornell, Mithas, and Morgenson
2006; Hendricks and Singhal 1996; 1997; Pau-
wels, Silva-Risso, Srinivasan, and Hanssens
2004).
As a knowledge-based resource, market-
ing resources can influence the performance of
international diversification. Brand equity plays
a key role in improving marketing efficiency and
effectiveness, brand loyalty, price, brand exten-
sion, and competitive advantage. As a firm’s in-
tangible assets, brand value seems to have a
positive impact on a firm’s financial perform-
ance, and eventually provides unique competi-
tiveness for market expansion. The basic under-
lying assumptions are that brand value is posi-
tively related to a firm’s financial performance
and being a global brand might create a favor-
able company and brand image.
Therefore, global brand value can form
favorable image in foreign consumers’ minds,
eventually facilitating international diversifica-
tion. To make a long story short, brand equity
provides value to customers by enhancing inter-
pretation of information, confidence in the pur-
chase decision, and use satisfaction.
Data and Method
To examine the association between in-
ternational diversification and its marketing as-
sets, the paper defines and measures an inde-
pendent variable, dependent variables, and con-
trol variables.
Data and Measures
An MNE (multinational enterprise)’s in-
ternationalization refers to the degree to which
the firm is geographically dispersed (Ghoshal
1987). International diversification was meas-
ured with the entropy of a firm’s sales across
geographic market regions, the number of coun-
tries in which a firm sells, the ratio of exports to
total sales, the ratio of foreign to total employees
(Wiersema and Bowen 2008),the number of for-
eign subsidiaries, market heterogeneity, foreign
return on sales, and foreign return on assets
(Sambharya 1995). In this study, international
diversification is measured by foreign sales ratio
(FSR) which is foreign sales scaled by total sales.
The Compustat Segment database provides
firms’ domestic and foreign sales by geographi-
cal segment.
Global Brand Value (GBV) is obtained
from Business Week and Interbrand from 2001
to 2006, as valued in millions of dollars. As a
well-known commercial brand equity metric,
Interbrand was already used to demonstrate that
strong brands not only deliver greater stock re-
turn than the relevant benchmark portfolio, but
also do so with lower risk (Madden, Fehle, and
Fournier 2006). Interbrand’s 2006 result shows
that Coca-Cola has achieved outstanding brand
value and the Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and Disney
are recognized as some of the most popular
global brands. The original sample size was 360
(100 brands from 2001 to 2006), but only
brands listed in consecutive years in the Top 100
Global Brands during this period are included in
this analysis. Table 1 displays descriptive statis-
tics and correlations.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. FSRt-1 0.55 0.20
2. ASSET t- 1 73062.00 126523.00 0.02
3. SALESt- 1 47976.00 76080.63 0.33 0.53
4. EMPLOYEEt-1 110.88 102.41 -0.10 0.30 0.5 0
5. PROFITt-1 2964.00 3945.11 0.20 0.50 0.7 0 0.24
6. GBVt 13585.00 14422.81 0.07 0.23 0.1 6 0.25 0.40
7. FSRt 0.55 0.20 0.90 0.03 0.3 2 -0.11 0.18 0.05
8. ASSET t 80510.00 142968.00 0.04 0.99 0.5 0 0.26 0.47 0.21 0.06
9. SALESt 51471.00 82297.19 0.34 0.52 0.9 9 0.46 0.70 0.14 0.34 0.50
10. EMPLOYEEt 112.37 104.90 -0.09 0.28 0.4 7 0.99 0.23 0.26 -0.08 0.25 0.45
11. PROFITt 3275.10 4564.27 0.20 0.48 0.6 7 0.19 0.90 0.35 0.21 0.47 0.68 0.19
12. FSRt+1 0.56 0.20 0.81 -0.01 0.3 0 -0.11 0.12 0.04 0.92 0.02 0.32 -0.08 0.17

Control variables representing firm size, such origin. The empirical analysis includes a total of
as total assets, sales, number of employees, and 336 observations, which represent 56 companies
net income are extracted from Compustat. Year times 6 years (2001~2006).
dummies are included to capture the specific
time effects and a dummy for U.S.-based com-
panies is used to grasp the effect of country of

The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1 19

Empirical Model Results and Discussion

After the foreign sales ratio is computed, Impact of Internationalization on Global

internationalization’s impact on global brand
value and the effect of global value on interna-
tional diversification are estimated using multi-
variate regression. To facilitate causality, this
study uses a 1-year lagged dependent variable on
a longitudinal basis. The squared and cubed val-
ues of foreign sales ratios and squared brand
power are included in regression equations to
check whether there is a curvilinear relationship
between them.
Brand Value
The regression result shows that global
brand value is determined by a firm’s interna-
tional diversification and size, as seen in Table 2.
After controlling for firm size and time-specific
factors, the foreign sales ratios are still signifi-
cantly related to global brand value. Interest-
ingly, three types of international diversification
value are significantly associated with global
brand value, indicating that the relationship be-

Table 2: Impact of International Diversification on Global Brand Value

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Non-U.S. Company U.S.-Company

B p-value B p-value B p-value B p-value B p-value

(Constant) 8.121 .000*** 4.749 .000*** 5.110 .000*** 13.028 .000*** 4.730 .000***
FSRt-1 7.311 .031* 7.389 .022* 6.883 .033* 15.954 .042* -11.584 .009**
(FSRt-1)2 -15.240 .021* -15.037 .018* -16.612 .009** -23.012 .089 29.723 .004**
(FSRt-1)3 9.589 .016* 9.914 .011* 11.433 .004** 12.134 .099 -21.634 .003**
ASSETt-1 .212 .003** .207 .004** -1.227 .000*** .145 .038*
SALESt-1 -.158 .159 -.133 .241 1.129 .003** .228 .073
EMPLOYEEt-1 .243 .001** .230 .001** .228 .108 .073 .323
PROFITt-1 .126 .103 .133 .086 -.908 .004** .182 .013*
Year1 .029 .862 .030 .855 .000 .999 .103 .558
Year2 -.017 .918 -.006 .973 .043 .857 .089 .616
Year3 -.045 .779 -.031 .848 -.053 .826 -.001 .994
Year4 -.051 .753 -.046 .778 .089 .718 -.074 .667
Year5 -.057 .727 -.053 .744 .210 .393 -.113 .508
US_Dummy .612 .000***
FSR*US .972 .000***

R2 0.022 0.217 0.216 0.475 0.399

Adjusted R2 0.012 0.181 0.179 0.383 0.363
significance 0.087 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.000 ***
n 304 292 292 82 210

*significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01, *** significant at 0.001

tween internationalization and brand value is
curvilinear rather than simply linear. Foreign
sales ratio and cubic foreign sales ratio are posi-
tively related to global brand value (b = 6.883, p
<0.05; b = 11.433, p < 0.01, respectively) while
the squared foreign sales ratio is negatively asso-
ciated with global brand value (b = –16.612, p <
0.01) in Model 3.
The relationship between geographic di-
versification and firm performance was already
considered to be non-linear rather than linear.
At high and low levels of internationalization,
the extent of diversification is negatively associ-
ated with firm performance, while at moderate
levels of diversification, greater geographic di-
versity is accompanied by high performance (Lu
and Beamish 2004). The performance of inter-
national diversification is examined for Mexican
firms in emerging markets. Mexican firms suffer
from negative performance in the early stage of
international diversification, but accumulated
experience of global operations can improve firm
performance (Thomas 2006). Also, there is an
inverted U-shaped relationship between market-
ing resources and growth in multinationality
(Tseng, Tansuhaj, Hallagan, and McCullough
2007).
Meanwhile, the relationship between interna-
tional diversification and global brand value is

20 The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1

moderated by country of origin. Compared to
U.S. MNEs, non-U.S. MNEs cannot enjoy brand
value to the same relative level through in-
creased internationalization, as seen in the Table
2. In U.S. companies, global brand value is
mainly influenced by the foreign sales ratio. A
non-linear relationship between the foreign sales
ratio and global brand value is observed in U.S.
companies, but there is little significant relation-
ship between internationalization and global
brand equity in non-U.S. companies. Non-U.S.
companies’ global brand value is determined by
firm size.
This country-of-origin effect can be ex-
plained in terms of brand popularity. Brand
popularity in conjunction with other marketing
variables influences market share directly as well
as indirectly by interacting with country-related
intangible assets. The results of empirical analy-
sis show that a competitive analysis without the
recognition of country image would be mislead-
ing. Country-specific intangible assets exist, and
they significantly interact with marketing vari-
ables in different ways for U.S. and Japanese
brands in the subcompact car market in the USA
(Kim and Chung 1997).
Impact of Global Brand Value on Inter-
national Diversification
It is assumed that higher global brand
value is an intangible marketing asset that moti-
vates firms to diversify their operations. Specifi-
cally, a famous global brand name is expected to
create a strong motive for more diversified op-
eration. When a firm enters a new international
market, it makes an attempt to increase brand
awareness with advertising and word of mouth.
After a firm enters and serves international mar-
ket customers, it can accumulate a brand image
by which global customers can communicate
with each other. Therefore, the more geographi-
cally diversified a firm is, the more recognized it
is by global market customers.
This proposition is partly supported by
the empirical results as seen in Table 3. The co-
efficients of GBV are significant in Model 4, but
after adding control variables, global brand
value is not positively related to the one-year
lagged FSR in Model 5. Squared global brand
value is also significantly related to internation-
alization (b=0.075, p<0.000) in Model 6, indi-
cating that the relationship between global
brand value and internalization is not linear.

Table 3: Impact of Global Brand Value on In ternational Diversification

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Non-U.S. Company U.S. Company

B p-value B p-value B p-value beta p-value beta p-value

(Constant) .379 .009 .184 .410 .407 .034 .326 .772 .420 .057
GBVt -.247 .000*** -.059 .068 -.089 .001** .018 .715 -.240 .000***
(GBVt) 2 .131 .000*** .028 .096 .075 .000*** .035 .092 .134 .000***
ASSET t -.023 .171 .011 .464 .014 .877 .020 .216
SALESt .084 .001** -.009 .702 .065 .490 -.025 .391
EMPLOYEEt -.053 .001** -.037 .006** -.093 .003 -.026 .092
PROFITt -.004 .857 -.015 .374 -.085 .484 -.014 .440
Year1 .053 .158 .050 .117 .030 .554 .055 .161
Year2 .090 .018 .102 .002** .025 .635 .125 .002**
Year3 .091 .017 .110 .001** .018 .729 .137 .001**
Year4 .058 .156 .111 .002** .086 .259 .119 .004**
Year5 .182 .000*** .229 .000*** .048 .493 .266 .000***
GBV*US_Dummy t -.030 .000***

R2 0.070 0.165 0.394 0.399 0.289

Adjusted R 2 0.061 0.130 0.365 0.276 0.249
Significance 0.085 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.002 ** 0.000 ***
n 290 270 270 82 188

*significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01, *** significant at 0.001

This result is consistent with prior re-
search. The ratio of marketing-related expenses
to total sales is not significantly related to per-
centage of foreign sales, while the squared ratio
of marketing-related expenses to total sales is
negatively associated with the foreign sales ratio
(Tseng, Tansuhaj, Hallagan, and McCullough
2007). Global brand value is positively related to
both perceived brand quality and prestige and,
through them, to purchase likelihood (Steenk-
amp, Batra, and Alden 2003).

The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1 21

 A country-of-origin effect is also present
in the relationship between GBV and FSR. With
respect to non-U.S. companies, the coefficients
of GBV and squared GBV are not significant,
indicating that the brand values of non-U.S.
companies do not influence their internationali-
zation. On the contrary, given that the GBV of
U.S. companies is negatively associated with
FSR (b = –0.240, p < 0.000), U.S. companies do
not enjoy the benefit of being U.S. companies.
Squared GBV is positively related to FSR (b =
0.134, p < 0.000), indicating that there is a cur-
vilinear relationship between GBV and FSR. This
can be interpreted to mean that brand equity is
significantly associated with both macro and
micro images of the country of origin. This find-
ing suggests that global consumers may evaluate
U.S. firms’ brands more sensitively than non-
U.S. firms’ brands (Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey
2007).
Based on the cognitive-affective model
of buying intentions, one recent empirical study
has revealed that Indian consumers have a posi-
tive attitude toward American products, leading
to emotionally favorable value and highly per-
ceived quality, which eventually leads to higher
purchase intention (Kumar, Lee, and Kim
2009). Another empirical study shows that
young Croatian consumers tend to evaluate the
quality of products using their brand and coun-
try-of-origin as important information sources.
Young Croatian consumers rank companies
from Western European countries as having the
best chocolate brands, followed by Croatia, and
then finally the other countries of Central and
Eastern Europe (Ozretic-Dosen, Skare, and
Krupka 2007).
Conclusion
This study addressed three questions: Is
the relationship between firms’ internationaliza-
tion and global brand value linear or non-linear?
Is higher global brand value associated with
higher diversified operation and vice versa? Is
the relationship between higher global brand
value and international diversification more sa-
lient in the case of U.S. companies? In order to
find answers to these questions, the authors in-
vestigated the association between global market
expansion and global brand power.
22 The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1
Summary of Findings
This study provides the evidence that
the two variables mutually benefit one another.
Although there is an unclear association between
internationalization and global brand value in
non-U.S. companies, U.S companies may hurt
their global brand value when they try to in-
crease their diversification. Global brand value
can drive firms to diversify international opera-
tions, but it cannot always boost market expan-
sion. Compared to non-U.S. firms, U.S. compa-
nies demonstrate a non-linear relationship be-
tween global brand and international diversifica-
tion and vice versa. The findings indicate that
the relationship between the foreign sales ratio
and global brand value is significant. Global
brand value is positively related to international
diversification, indicating that the higher the
global brand value, the more diversified the in-
ternational operation will be.
However, U.S. companies experience
diminishing international diversification as
global brand value increases. That is to say,
global brand value decreases with increasing
internationalization, creates a positive relation-
ship between increasing geographic diversifica-
tion and firm global brand value, and then de-
clines at very high levels of multinationality.
This curvilinear relationship can be attributed to
brand crises defined as “well-publicized claims
of unsubstantiated or false brand propositions.”
Given that incongruence in brand association
damages brand value (Dawar and Lei 2009),
negative or unfavorable brand association may
be an obstacle for international operations.
Implications
This study uncovered a two-way rela-
tionship between marketing and international
diversification. Although Robson et al. (2002)
treated marketing variables as an intermediary
outcome of international joint ventures (IJV),
this paper is the first to empirically address the
critical issues shared by marketing and interna-
tional business simultaneously. The authors at-
tempted to link marketing to international busi-
ness by examining the mutually beneficial rela-
tionship between intangible brand assets and
geographic market expansion. According to the
findings, global brand equity can be accepted
both as an antecedent to and a consequence of
international diversification.
 The authors also extended research
theme by building a bridge between marketing
and international business. One recent research
result showed that relative to R&D and opera-
tions capabilities, marketing is expected to have
the largest impact on firm performance (Kras-
nikov and Jayachandran 2008). In contrast, the
present study sought to uncover the synergistic
or mutually reinforcing relationship between
business functions, rather than the relative im-
pact of each business area.
Practically, the study suggests that firms
should pay attention to brand management in
order to facilitate diversity in international op-
erations. Management needs to realize that as an
intangible asset for the firm, global brand value
is a new driver and an outcome of international
operations diversification. Also, the author has
provided the meaningful insight that U.S. com-
panies need an appropriate degree of interna-
tional diversification that optimizes the global
brand value. Global brand value may be a good
motive for international diversification, but cau-
tious market research should be conducted prior
to entrance into a foreign market in order to
minimize the vulnerability of global brands to
negative feedback effects. If competitor brand
familiarity is high in the targeted foreign market,
brand equity–based market expansion will not
be successful (Milberg and Sinn 2008). Having
U.S. global brand value cannot guarantee suc-
cessful market expansion.
Future Research
In spite of a fruitful result, this study has
a some limitations that should be resolved in the
future. This study measures ‘internationaliza-
tion’ using a single variable, foreign sales ratio,
but prior research has introduced other alterna-
tive measures of international diversification,
such as foreign production ratio and geographic
dispersion (Sanders and Carpenter 1998). More-
over, most global firms are not really global
companies because they have the majority of
their sales in North America, the European Un-
ion, or Asia (Rugman and Verbeke 2004). Given
this, future research needs to elaborate on the
concept of international diversification.
This paper excludes a possible interac-
tion between global brand and advertising or
R&D expenditure (McAlister, Srinivasan, and
Kim 2007). In addition, other moderators be-
tween international operations and global brand
value should be taken into account. For example,
The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1
IT (information technology) investment may
moderate the mutual relationship between op-
eration internationalization and global brand
power. High IT investment can boost the impact
of international diversification on firm perform-
ance (Chari, Devaraj, and David 2007). Given
that interaction between international diversifi-
cation and product diversification can lead to
increased firm performance (Sambharya 1995),
product diversification should be addressed in
the relationship between internationalization
and global brand value.
Future research should include foreign
competition and industry globalization
(Wiersema and Bowen 2008). Industry effect
should be taken into account because prior re-
search shows that a substantial fraction of the
valuation of consumer goods companies and
even some high-technology firms was based on
brand equity (Simon and Sullivan 1993). TMT
characteristics are potential moderators in that,
based on the upper echelon theory, TMT charac-
teristics can influence diversification perform-
ance. TMTs with higher educational levels,
shorter organizational tenures, younger execu-
tives, and greater international experience may
play a key role for higher diversification in inter-
national operations (Herrmann and Datta
2005).
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Chan, Louis K.C., Lakonishok Josef, and Theodore Sougian-
nis (2001), “The Stock Market Valuation of Research
and Development Expenditures,” Journal of Finance,
56 (6), 2431-2456.
Chari, M., S. Devaraj, and P. David (2007), “International
Diversification and Firm Performance: Role of Informa-
tion Technology Investments,” Journal of World Busi-
ness, 42 (2), 184-19.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., M. M. Maloney, and S. Manrakhan
(2007), “Causes of the Difficulties in Internationaliza-
tion,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (5),
709-725.
Dawar, N., and J. Lei (2009), “Brand Crises: The Role of
Brand Familiarity and Crisis Relevance in Determining
the Impact on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Business
Research, 62 (4), 509-516.
Doukas, J.A., and L.H.P. Lang (2003), “Foreign Direct In-
vestment, Diversification and Firm Performance,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2), 153-
172.
Eberhart, Allan C., William F. Maxwell, and Akhtar Siddique
(2004), “An Examination of Long-Term Abnormal
23
 Stock Returns and Operating Performance Following
R&D Increases,” Journal of Finance, 59 (2), 623-650.
Fornell, Claes, Sunil Mithas, Forrest V. Morgeson III, and
M.S. Krishnan (2006), “Customer Satisfaction and
Stock Prices: High Returns, Low Risk,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 70 (1), 3-14.
Ghosal, S. (1987), “Global Strategy: An Organizing Frame-
work,” Strategic Management Journal, 8 (5), 425-440.
Hendricks, Kevin B., and Vinod R. Singhal (1996), “Quality
Awards and the Market Value of the Firm: An Empirical
Investigation,” Management Science, 42 (3), 415-436.
Hendricks, Kevin B., and Vinod R. Singhal (1997), “Delays in
New Product Introductions and the Market Value of the
Firm: The Consequences of Being Late to the Market,”
Management Science, 43 (4), 422-436.
Hermann, P., and D. K. Datta (2005), “Relationships be-
tween Top Management Team Characteristics and In-
ternational Diversification: An Empirical Investiga-
tion,” British Journal of Management, 16 (1), 2005, 69-
78.
Hitt, M.A., L. Tihanyi, T. Miller, and B. Connelly (2006),
“International Diversification: Antecedents, Outcomes,
and Moderators,” Journal of Management, 32 (6), 831-
867.
Keller, K. L., and D. R. Lehmann (2006), “Brands and
Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities,”
Marketing Science, 25 (6), 740-759.
Kim, Chung Koo, and Jay Young Chung (1997), “Brand
Popularity, Country, Image and Market Share: An Em-
pirical Study,” Journal of International Business Stud-
ies, 28 (2), 361-386.
Krasnikov, Alexander, and Satish Jayachandran (2008),
“The Relative Impact of Marketing, Research-and-
Development, and Operations Capabilities on Firm Per-
formance,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (2), 1-11.
Kumar, A., H. J. Lee, and Y. K. Kim (2009), “Indian Con-
sumers’ Purchase Intention toward a United States ver-
sus Local Brand,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (5),
521-527.
Lane, V., and R. Jacobson (1995), “Stock Market Reactions to
Brand Extension Announcements: The Effects of Brand
Attitude and Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (1),
63-78.
Lu, J. W., and Beamish, P. W (2004), “International Diversi-
fication and Firm Performance: The S-curve Hypothe-
sis,” Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4), 598-
609.
Luo, Xueming, and C. B. Bhattacharya (2006), “Corporate
Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Mar-
ket Value,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 1-18.
Madden, T. J., F. Fehle, and S. Fournier (2006), “Brands
Matter: An Empirical Demonstration of the Creation of
Shareholder Value through Branding,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 224-235.
Markides, C. C., and C. D. Ittner (1994), “Shareholder Bene-
fits from Corporate International Diversification: Evi-
24 The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1
dence from U.S. International Acquisitions,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 25: 343-366.
McAlister, Leigh, Raji Srinivasan, and MinChung Kim
(2007), “Advertising, Research and Development, and
Systematic Risk of the Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 71
(1), 35-48.
Milberg, S. J., and F. Sinn (2008), “Vulnerability of Global
Brands to Negative Feedback Effects,” Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 61 (6), 684-690.
Mizik, N., and R. Jacobson (2008), “The Financial Value
Impact of Brand Dimensions,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 45 (1), 15-32.
Pappu, Ravi, Pascale G. Quester, and Ray W. Cooksey
(2007), “Country Image and Consumer-based Brand
Equity: Relationships and Implications for Interna-
tional Marketing,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 38 (5), 726-745.
Pauwels, Koen, Jorge Silva-Risso, Shuba Srinivasan, and
Dominique M. Hanssens (2004), “New Products, Sales
Promotions, and Firm Value: The Case of the Automo-
bile Industry,” Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 142-156.
Robson, M. J., L. Leonidou, C. Katsikeas, and S. Constantine
(2002), “Factors Influencing International Joint Ven-
ture Performance: Theoretical Perspectives, Assess-
ment, and Future Directions,” Management Interna-
tional Review, 42 (4), 385-418.
Roth, K., and A. J. Morrison (1990), “An Empirical Analysis
of the Integration-Responsiveness Framework in Inter-
national Business,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 21 (4), 541-564.
Rugman, A., and A. Verbeke (2004), “A Perspective on Re-
gional and Global Strategies of Multinational Enter-
prises,” Journal of International Business Studies, 35
(1), 3-18.
Sambharya, R. D. (1995), “The Combined Effect of Interna-
tional Diversification and Product Diversification
Strategies on the Performance of U.S.-Based Multina-
tional Corporations,” Management International Re-
view, 35 (3), 197-218.
Sanders, W. G., and M. A. Carpenter (1998), “Internationali-
zation and Firm Governance: The Roles of CEO Com-
pensation, Top Team Composition, and Board Struc-
ture,” Academy of Management Journal, 41 (2), 158-
178.
Srinivasan, Shuba, and Dominique M. Hanssens (2009),
“Marketing and Firm Value: Metrics, Methods, Find-
ings, and Future Directions,” Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 46 (3), 293-312.
Srivastava, Rajenda K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam
Fahey (1998), “Market-Based Assets and Shareholder
Value: A Framework for Analysis,” Journal of Market-
ing, 62 (1), 2-18.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L.
Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Cre-
ates Brand Value,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 34 (1), 53-65.
Thomas, D. E. (2006), “International Diversification and
Firm Performance on Mexican Firms: A Curvilinear Re-
 lationship?” Journal of Business Research, 59 (4), 501-
507. Wiersema, M., and H. P. Bowen (2008), “Corporate Diversi-
fication: The Impact of Foreign Competition, Industry
Tseng, C. H., P. Tansuhaj, W. Hallagan, and J. McCullough Globalization, and Product Diversification,” Strategic
(2007), “Effects of Firm Resources on Growth in Multi- Management Journal, 29 (2), 115-132.
nationality,” Journal of International Business Studies,
38 (6), 961-974.

Jin-Woo Kim is a Ph.D. candidate in Marketing at the University of Texas at Arlington.

He holds an M.A. and a B.A. in Business Administration from Sogang University, Seoul, Korea. His current re-
search interests include advertising effectiveness, corporate social responsibility, brand management and service
marketing. His research has been published in Journal of Service Science and Management, Journal of Man-
agement and Marketing Research and proceeding of the Society for Marketing Advances.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Dr. Deepak Datta and Dr. Doug Grisaffe for their support in research framework development
and empirical analysis

The Journal of Global Business Issues – Volume 4 Issue 1 25

Copyright of Journal of Global Business Issues is the property of Journal of Global Business Issues and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.