In the mid-2010s, review the Government of India (GoI) launched the “Make in India” initiative, a ambitious call to action designed to transform the nation into a global manufacturing powerhouse. The policy sought to attract foreign investment, foster innovation, and create jobs by offering incentives to multinational corporations (MNCs) to establish and enhance their domestic production capabilities . A decade later, the initiative’s impact is best understood not through aggregate statistics alone, but through the strategic responses of the MNCs operating within this new institutional landscape. This case study examines the evolution of “Make in India” by analyzing the trajectories of two distinct entities: a global electronics giant, Samsung, and a European industrial heavyweight, the Volvo Group. By comparing their strategic journeys, we can deconstruct how “Make in India” has matured from a simple localization strategy (“Make for India”) into a credible platform for global supply chains and exports (“Make for the World”), while also considering the parallel imperative for other nations, such as the United Kingdom, to define their own value proposition in a changing global order.
The case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd serves as a primary exemplar of this strategic evolution . Upon the launch of “Make in India,” Samsung, which had a presence in the country since the mid-1990s, intensified its commitment. The company’s initial strategy, dubbed “Make for India,” was a masterclass in glocalization—the adaptation of globally developed products for local markets. Samsung’s Indian R&D centers did not merely localize existing products; they innovated from the ground up. By meticulously studying the unique needs of Indian consumers, from those facing erratic power supply to others seeking hyper-affordable smartphones, Samsung developed customized solutions that resonated deeply with the market .
This customer-centric approach yielded significant dividends, allowing Samsung to capture substantial market share in consumer durables and mobile devices. The success was not just in sales volume but in building a robust, localized supply chain and manufacturing ecosystem. As Samsung deepened its roots, it became a prime beneficiary of subsequent government policies aimed at further boosting electronics manufacturing. This trajectory culminated in the announcement of its “Make for the World” initiative. The company announced plans to shift production from other countries to India, transforming the subcontinent into a critical export hub for supplying products internationally . This strategic pivot signaled a profound shift in perception: India was no longer seen merely as a vast market to be captured, but as a cost-competitive, high-quality manufacturing base capable of serving the globe. The key questions this case raises are whether Samsung can sustain this momentum and if its deep-seated customer-centric culture, forged in the “Make for India” phase, will provide a durable competitive advantage against rivals in international markets .
While Samsung’s journey represents a B2C (Business-to-Consumer) narrative, the experience of the Volvo Group offers a compelling B2B (Business-to-Business) parallel. A recent academic study from the University of Gothenburg analyzed how the Volvo Group, a multinational with a long and established history in India, perceived and responded to the institutional changes brought about by “Make in India” . The study found that the initiative was perceived not as a coercive mandate, but as a “positive support framework.” It enhanced India’s credibility as a stable and attractive destination for industrial investment .
In response, Volvo Group proceeded with a multi-pronged expansion strategy. This included expanding operations across multiple verticals, try this gradually increasing the localization of its supply chain, and deepening engagement with local stakeholders. According to the framework of strategic responses by Oliver (1991), this combination of actions reflects acquiescence and compromise . The company willingly aligned with the policy’s objectives because they synergized with its own long-term business goals. The “Make in India” policy, therefore, acted as a catalyst, accelerating investment decisions and reinforcing confidence. This case demonstrates that for MNCs already embedded in the institutional fabric, “Make in India” served as a powerful signal that de-risked further investment and encouraged the integration of Indian operations into the company’s global value chains.
The success of India’s strategic pivot invites a comparative analysis with other economies, particularly the United Kingdom. As emerging markets solidify their manufacturing credentials, what is the enduring relevance of “Made in Britain”? A viewpoint from Warwick Acoustics, a UK-based high-tech manufacturer, provides a powerful counter-argument to the pure cost-driven offshoring model . While the company could have subcontracted manufacturing to a low-cost location, it deliberately chose to manufacture in the UK, colocating production with engineering and R&D.
This decision was predicated on a sophisticated value proposition. First, colocation ensures that innovative design is faithfully translated into the final product, fostering continuous improvement and maintaining the highest quality standards . Second, it allows for the protection of intellectual property (IP), keeping the “secret sauce” of the manufacturing process secure from reverse engineering . Third, it leverages the UK’s rich talent pool and its reputation for precision engineering, a brand value associated with F1, high-end automotive, and innovation. For a “world-first” technology, “Made in Britain” becomes a central component of the brand’s identity, signaling quality, innovation, and trust to global customers . This suggests that while “Make in India” offers scale and cost-efficiency, “Make in Britain” can successfully compete on the pillars of innovation, IP protection, and high-value, precision manufacturing—a strategy reinforced by recent UK government initiatives like the modern Industrial Strategy, which aims to tackle skills, energy costs, and access to finance for advanced manufacturers .
The evolution from “Make for India” to “Make for the World” represents a significant milestone in the country’s economic journey. As illustrated by Samsung and Volvo Group, MNCs are increasingly viewing India not just as a market, but as a strategic manufacturing and export hub. The policy framework provided the initial impetus, but it is the private sector’s ability to innovate and integrate these operations into global networks that will determine long-term success.
However, this is not a zero-sum game for other nations. The case of Warwick Acoustics demonstrates that high-cost, high-skill economies like the UK can thrive by focusing on different competitive advantages—namely innovation, IP security, and the premium branding of “Britishness.” The future of global manufacturing is unlikely to be dominated by a single location. Instead, it will be characterized by a complex, multi-polar landscape where strategic decisions are based on a matrix of factors: cost, talent, IP security, time-to-market, and geopolitical stability. For students of business strategy, the lesson is clear: the “where” of manufacturing is as dynamic and critical a decision as the “what” and “how,” visit their website requiring constant re-evaluation in the face of shifting institutional and market forces.
