Purpose Previous research on the internationalization of retailing typically focused on retail companies crossing borders to enter other countries. Yet, a large number of people cross country borders to outshop in neighboring countries. This form of inward retail internationalization has received little attention in the literature. To address this void, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the strategies of retailers in a border zone setting. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected data from 109 US retailers on the USA–Mexico border. The survey instrument included questions that captured the participants’ opinions regarding the importance of Mexican consumers, retail mix strategies, performance issues and overall retailer characteristics. Findings The findings show that US retailers perceive cross-border consumers as important to their performance. Interestingly, the findings also suggest that border zone retailers do not adapt their retail mix strategies with this target market in mind. Research limitations/implications The research was conducted at one particular border zone with its own unique characteristics. It is not clear whether the authors’ findings would apply in other inward internationalization contexts (e.g. medical tourism) or border zones. Future research should delve much more deeply into understanding outshopping motivations in border zones, but also the reasons why retailers do not actively engage in marketing their establishments to this target market. Practical implications The authors’ findings have interesting implications for retail managers in border zones. While exogenous and uncontrollable advantages on one side of the border may attract customers away from the other side of the border, retail mix customization under the control of retail managers may actually stimulate similar or better results. Border zone retailers are encouraged to engage in efforts to understand the border zone consumer and engage in programs directly targeted at them. Originality/value The study is grounded in theory and empirically assesses the retailers’ own contributions to enhancing their inward internationalization performance. By using the model of secondary boundary effects developed by Clark (1994) as their theoretical prism, the authors have put forward hypotheses, which address the aforementioned issues.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine alleged perpetrators' reactions to being accused of discrimination. Design/methodology/approach -The paper examines how the mode of confrontation as well as the perpetrator's status relate to the alleged perpetrator's state of anger and the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. To test the hypotheses, the authors conducted an experimental design using an organizational scenario. Findings -The mode of confrontation predicts the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. The paper also found that both anger and the likelihood of providing a justification for a charge of discrimination are higher when the mode of confrontation is indirect and the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor. Research limitations/implications -An organizational scenario limits the realism of the study such that results may not generalize to actual organizational settings (Stone, Hosoda, Lukaszewski and Phillips). In addition, the response rate was low. Nevertheless, a full understanding of issues related to reactions to alleged discrimination will depend upon research conducted in a variety of settings under a variety of conditions. Practical implications -It is unlikely that direct confrontations will be instrumental in correcting misperceptions of discriminatory behavior. Organizations need to provide training on how to manage confrontation episodes as an opportunity to mitigate perceived mistreatment. Originality/value -Which mode of confrontation is best? Indirect confrontation is associated with a higher likelihood of the alleged perpetrator providing a justification for a charge of discrimination, particularly when the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor. However, anger is also higher when supervisors are confronted indirectly about allegations of discrimination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.