Launched in 2014 by the Indian Prime Minister, get more the “Make in India” initiative was a seminal call to action for global corporations, inviting them to invest and establish manufacturing bases within the country’s borders. This case study examines the multifaceted challenges and strategic opportunities presented by this initiative. Through the lens of two distinct corporate responses—a comprehensive analysis of the program’s operational hurdles and a deep dive into Samsung’s evolutionary journey from ‘Make in India’ to ‘Make for the World’—this study provides a framework for understanding how MNCs navigate institutional change. It explores themes of glocalization, supply chain management, government relations, and the transformation of a local manufacturing hub into a global export powerhouse. Students will analyze the delicate balance between adhering to domestic policies and maintaining global competitiveness.

Navigating the “Make in India” Mandate: Strategic Adaptation and Global Ambition

On September 25, 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi extended a sweeping invitation to businesses worldwide: invest in India, produce in India. The “Make in India” campaign was far more than a slogan; it was a comprehensive effort to transform the South Asian nation into a global manufacturing and design hub . For multinational corporations (MNCs) already operating in or entering the Indian market, this initiative represented a significant shift in the institutional environment. It was a moment that demanded strategic recalibration, forcing leaders to reconcile global operational models with local governmental pressures and market realities.

This case study examines the strategic responses of MNCs to the “Make in India” initiative. By synthesizing key frameworks from existing business school cases, we explore two critical dimensions: the initial operational and marketing challenges outlined in the Harvard Business Publishing case, and the long-term evolutionary strategy exemplified by Samsung Electronics, as documented in a detailed case study by The Case Centre . Together, they provide a holistic view of how a policy mandate can be transformed from a compliance requirement into a competitive advantage.

The Initial Challenge: Operating and Marketing in a New Paradigm

The “Make in India” initiative was not merely an invitation; it was a catalyst for complex operational and marketing dilemmas. For any MNC executive, the decision to deepen local manufacturing involves a high-stakes evaluation. The Make in India: The Operating and Marketing Challenge case from HBS highlights the initial conundrum . Companies had to grapple with the ground-level realities of India’s business ecosystem. While the promise was a skilled workforce and a massive domestic market, the immediate challenges often included infrastructural bottlenecks, complex regulatory landscapes at the state and central levels, and the need to build a reliable tier of local suppliers.

From a marketing perspective, the mandate to “make in India” came with a powerful, intangible benefit: the potential for “glocalization.” Producing locally allows companies to move beyond simply assembling products and into the realm of designing solutions tailored specifically to Indian consumers. This required R&D centers to shift their focus from adapting global products to creating new ones from the ground up, based on deep insights into Indian customer needs, price sensitivity, and usage patterns . The initial phase, therefore, was about building the capability to navigate this complex operating environment while leveraging the “Made in India” label to build brand equity and customer trust.

Case in Point: Samsung’s Strategic Evolution

A powerful illustration of a company successfully navigating this journey is Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. why not try this out The case study Samsung: Going from ‘Make for India’ to ‘Make for the World’ documents the company’s multi-phased strategy from 1996 to 2021, demonstrating a masterclass in aligning corporate goals with national policy .

Samsung’s response to the changing institutional environment was not a single decision but a strategic evolution across three distinct phases:

“Make in India” (The Compliance and Capacity Phase): In the mid-2010s, Samsung responded to the initial government incentives, or “sops,” by aggressively enhancing its domestic manufacturing footprint. This phase was about building scale, taking advantage of tax benefits, and committing capital to the Indian market. It signaled to both the government and consumers that Samsung was a serious, long-term partner in India’s growth story.
“Make for India” (The Glocalization Phase): This was the pivotal strategic shift. Samsung recognized that manufacturing locally was insufficient; they had to innovate locally. The company leveraged its Indian R&D centers to develop products that were not just assembled in India, but designed for India. This involved creating products that catered to unique local needs—such as refrigerators with larger vegetable compartments to match Indian cooking habits, or televisions with powerful speakers for a market that values audio quality and customized content consumption. This customer-centric approach, born from studying Indian consumer feedback, allowed Samsung to move from being a foreign electronics giant to a trusted local player .
“Make for the World” (The Global Export Hub Phase): Having mastered local manufacturing and innovation, Samsung then announced its most ambitious initiative yet: “Make for the World.” The company began shifting production from other countries to India, effectively making it a global export hub. This decision validated the success of the previous phases. India was no longer just a large market to sell to or a low-cost location to assemble in; it had become a strategic center of excellence capable of designing and producing world-class goods for international markets. The case leaves us with a compelling question: Will India become Samsung’s sole production base in Asia?

Theoretical Framework: Responding to Institutional Pressure

The experiences of MNCs like Samsung can be understood through the lens of institutional theory. As noted in a recent master’s thesis on Volvo Group and the Make in India Initiative, firms employ distinct strategic responses when faced with institutional pressures . Using frameworks like Oliver’s (1991) strategic responses, we can categorize corporate behavior.

Initially, many firms adopt a strategy of acquiescence, complying with the new “Make in India” norms to gain legitimacy and secure operational licenses. However, as Samsung’s trajectory shows, successful firms evolve beyond mere compliance. They move toward a strategy of compromise, actively negotiating with and shaping their environment. By building deep relationships with local stakeholders and developing products for the local market, they become embedded in the institutional fabric. Finally, leading firms achieve a state of manipulation, where they proactively influence their environment. By turning India into an export hub, Samsung is not just responding to a policy; it is leveraging that policy to reshape its global supply chain, effectively creating a new strategic reality for itself and its competitors .

Conclusion and Teaching Implications

The “Make in India” initiative serves as a rich, real-world laboratory for understanding modern global strategy. The journey from a policy announcement to a transformed business model is fraught with challenges but also ripe with opportunity.

For classroom discussion, this case synthesis raises several critical questions:

For MNCs: How do you balance the pressure to localize manufacturing with the need to maintain global quality standards and cost efficiencies? What are the risks of over-reliance on a single manufacturing hub?
For Samsung specifically: Was the evolution from “Make for India” to “Make for the World” a deliberate long-term strategy, or a serendipitous outcome of successful local operations? What are the core competencies—R&D, supply chain agility, consumer insight—that enabled this transition?
For policymakers: What types of incentives (tax breaks, infrastructure investment, skill development) are most effective in moving MNCs from simple assembly to high-value activities like R&D and global exports?

Ultimately, the “Make in India” story, as told through these business cases, underscores a fundamental truth of international business: success depends not just on responding to policy, but on integrating that policy into a forward-looking, find this dynamic corporate strategy.