| Type | Journal article (empirical study) |
| Title | “On the Globalness of Emerging Multinationals: A Study of Indian MNEs” |
| Authors | Jaya Prakash Pradhan & Raj Aggarwal |
| Published | 2011 · Economia e Politica Industriale – Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 38(1), pp. 163–180 |
| Data | Indian multinationals’ overseas operations and sales |
| Read | Publisher page |
This is a plain-language summary of “On the Globalness of Emerging Multinationals: A Study of Indian MNEs” (Pradhan & Aggarwal, Economia e Politica Industriale, 2011).
In short:
- The conventional view held that emerging-market firms could only be regional players. This study shows that many Indian multinationals are genuinely global.
- The evidence is concrete: on average, Indian MNEs drew 53% of sales from abroad and placed 62% of their subsidiaries in developed markets — and leaders like Dr. Reddy’s, Suzlon, and Wipro earned 80%+ of sales overseas.
- It also sets a strict bar for what “global” means — presence in all four world regions, with no single region above 50% of sales.
The regional myth
For years, the dominant view in international-business research was that firms from emerging economies were, at best, regional players — able to compete near home but not on the world stage. This study, co-authored with Raj Aggarwal, tests that claim against the actual operations of Indian multinationals. It doesn’t hold up.
The evidence: they earn abroad
The clearest sign of a firm’s global reach is how much of its money comes from outside its home market. By that measure, the leading Indian multinationals are emphatically international.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories drew 83% of its sales from abroad, Suzlon Energy 80%, and Wipro 77% — each earning far more outside India than within it. Even the average Indian multinational crossed the halfway mark, at 53% foreign sales. And the footprint is wide as well as deep: Tata Steel operated across 46 countries, and 62% of Indian MNEs’ overseas subsidiaries sat in developed markets — not the developing-world “backyard” the regional thesis predicted.
| Company | Global footprint |
|---|---|
| Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories | 83% of sales from abroad |
| Suzlon Energy | 80% of sales from abroad |
| Wipro | 77% of sales from abroad |
| Tata Steel | Operations in 46 countries |
What counts as “global”
The study doesn’t just point to high foreign-sales numbers; it applies a strict test of globalness, adapted from the international-business literature. A firm qualifies as global only if it clears two bars at once.
First, the firm must have a real presence — at least 10% of sales — in each of the four world regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the other developing regions). Second, no single region can account for more than half of its global sales. A firm that clears both isn’t merely exporting widely; it is genuinely balanced across the world. A number of Indian multinationals meet this demanding standard — which is what makes the “regional only” label untenable.
Why it matters
If emerging-market firms can be this global, the theories built on the assumption that they can’t need rethinking. The study argues that the intensity of these firms’ overseas operations is comparable to — sometimes greater than — that of the world’s leading multinationals, and that several derive more of their sales or assets from outside their home base than within it. The deeper implication is that a firm’s country of origin is becoming a weaker predictor of its global success than its strategic capabilities, innovation capacity, and operational reach.
Read the academic abstract
Contrary to contentions in the earlier literature that emerging multinationals are only regional players, the evidence on the globalness of Indian firms presented in this study suggests that a number of emerging multinationals are global firms. Their strategies target both developed and developing markets, and the intensity of their overseas operations is comparable with — or far greater than — that of the world’s leading multinationals. Many of these firms have greater sales or capital assets outside their home base. Indeed, many qualify as global firms in that they have a significant presence (over 10% of sales) in each of the four regions (the triad and the non-triad developing regions), with no region alone accounting for more than 50% of their global sales. Studying the transformation of emerging multinationals into non-home-region players offers considerable potential for better understanding management theory and practice.Cite this article
Pradhan, J. P., & Aggarwal, R. (2011). On the globalness of emerging multinationals: A study of Indian MNEs. Economia e Politica Industriale – Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 38(1), 163–180.
View on the publisher’s site →
Related on this site
- The same emerging-multinational question, comparing two countries’ models: The Dragon and Tiger Go Global: Chinese and Indian Companies
- The fuller story of how India’s multinationals grew: Giants Awakening — The Story of Indian Companies Going Global
- The wider shift these firms are part of: Shifting Global Power: How Emerging Economies Are Reshaping Our World
