In an international economy with evolving technologies and volatile markets, global supply chain networks provide corporations with increased speed, flexibility, and efficiency (Lincoln et al., 1998). Many Japanese firms have directed their attention to manufacturing bases in India as an integral part of their global supply chains. For instance, a Japanese company may export manufacturing equipment to India, conduct manufacturing in a facility in India, and then sell the goods in Japan. The result of such global supply chain practices is that Japanese companies seeking to build a presence in India still encounter distribution obstacles and undeveloped supply chain channels (Sharma, 2010).

The issue of supply chain assessment and management practices in India remains one of the least understood aspects of international management (Khanna & Palepu, 2006).

India is a $1.2 trillion economy that is fast developing into an open-market economy (Khanna & Palepu, 2010). Government regulations are getting more liberalized paving the way for an open economy. Ahluwalia (2002) notes that economic liberalization, including reduced controls on foreign trade and investment that began in the early 1990s has served to accelerate the country's growth, which has averaged more than seven percent per year since 1997. Many public sector undertakings are now being privatized resulting in the strengthening of stock markets.

Source: Park, D., Krishnan, H. A., Chinta, R., Assudani, R., & Lee, M. (2012). Elephant and samurai: Differences between Indian and Japanese supply chain management. Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(2), 207-224.

Our theoretical point of departure to explain how Finnish firms’ Russian subsidiaries cope with the conflicting pressures from the low-corrupt home country and high-corrupt host country is the neo-institutional organisation theory, which focuses on the interaction between organisations and their institutional environments. Its main  thesis is that organisations seek legitimacy within their environment, and such legitimacy is attained through conforming to the demands from institutional constituents (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The early formulations of the institutional organisation theory elaborated the construct of institutional isomorphism, which meant the adaptation to the institutional pressures from the environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These pressures can be categorised on the basis of Scott’s (1995) definition of institutional environments consisting of regulative, normative and cognitive pillars. Consequently, the adaptation of organisational processes and structures is perceived to take place through different mechanisms, including the coercion of state regulation, mimicry of other successful organisations, and normative isomorphism carried by professional organisations and individuals sharing the same kind of educational background (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This process ultimately leads to the adoption of the dominant ‘templates of organising’ by the organisations subject to the same set of institutional pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991).

Source: Karhunen, P., & Kosonen, R. (2013). Strategic responses of foreign subsidiaries to host country corruption. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 9(1/2), 88-105.