Coca-Cola, the iconic soda maker, had its roots in globalization in the early twentieth century. Historically, up until the 1980s, Coca-Cola primarily encouraged the strategy of localization. When Roberto Goizueta became the CEO in 1981, Coca-Cola slowly shifted towards a more standardized policy in an attempt to more effectively penetrate international markets. Within a matter of ten years, Coca-Cola was forced to once again shift its policies because standardization creating growth the corporate giant had hoped to see. Both strategies of localization and standardization have had limited successes in the past. The question now becomes what are the necessary considerations needed to be taken into account to enable a product to sell internationally and to continue to grow? Before analyzing the strategy Coca-Cola should partake, it is important to look at the general strengths and limitations to both strategies. On one hand, standardization brings in competitive advantages that localization cannot bring. According to Meyer and Bernier, the ultimate advantage of standardization is economies of scale in R&D, production, and marketing. Such economies of scale have led to “greater sales volume, lower production cost, greater profitability, and [an] integrated image around the world” (Meyer and Bernier 11). However, standardization often fails to adhere to cultural differences. For example, when Phillips a technology company, introduced its standardized coffee maker to the Japanese markets in 1987, it failed to sell because the company did not consider that the coffee makers were too large to fit into small Japanese kitchens (Kotler 3). Localization also has its share of limitations and strengths. Localization allows for companies to tailor their products to the consumers of a certain region. For example, when attempting to penetrate the Japanese market, Mattel Barbie