In the summer of 1995, Procter & Gamble, the U.S. multinational giant, modified its global operational structure. Its new structure would include a top-tier management team consisting of four vice-presidents, each representing a particular region, namely North America, Europe (and also to include the Middle East and Africa), Asia (and Pacific Rim), and Latin America. One of the main reasons cited for this organizational change was the elimination of duties and regulations that now allows P&G to distribute its products to foreign consumers cheaper and quicker. While acknowledging that over 50 percent of the company’s sales come from North America, and so, too, a bulk of its profits, the top management mentioned that it took care not to emphasize a particular region over the other. But competing globally with mature brands in saturated markets posed continued challenges. In 1999, a belt-tightening initiative called Organization 2005 was launched. Since then, a host of marginal and mature brands have been eliminated, and a quarter of P&G’s brand managers have left the company. Yet, there is no doubt that most of the company’s new products originated in the United States. Few dominant products and brands have been originated from its foreign subsidiaries. There are, however, examples of brands, such as Tide that involved the cross-fertilization of ideas and technologies from its operations around the world. Based on the facts provided, and any popular press information about P & G you have been exposed to, what would you consider to be P & G’s predominant international strategy—global (integrated on a worldwide basis), regional (integrated on a regional level), ethnocentric (predominantly influenced by its operations in North America), or polycentric (primarily independent and autonomous functioning of its international subsidiaries)?