ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that, for many firms, the second condition prevails. It discusses four case studies of overseas investments made by three firms drawn from three different professions. All four of the investment projects were preceded by documented plans and these served to justify the investments required. In case A the proposal was justified purely on an investment basis. In cases B and D the proposals were couched as a need to follow or serve a particular customer. Case C was put as an investment but with business spin-offs. Case study evidence is always open to mixed interpretation; and a case study based on four firms, albeit large and sophisticated firms, is limited in scope. Whilst the firms approached international investments differently, using different ownership structures and different ways of operating, all show strong evidence of integrating their international operations in a significant way into their overall businesses.
