個案總覽

In early 2020, the California-based utility PG&E filed a second amended plan of reorganization. PG&E had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the face of more than $30 billion of legal claims brought against it for its alleged role in causing California wildfires. The plan had the support of key creditors and shareholders and a court-appointed committee representing the wildfire victims. However, it faced strong opposition from California's governor, Gavin Newsom, who was concerned that PG&E's plan would leave it too highly leveraged, and unable to make necessary investments. Were Newsom's concerns valid ones? Did the plan as currently envisioned leave the reorganized PG&E with too much debt to meet its obligations to the wildfire victims while still making the necessary investments to update its equipment? And was PG&E prepared for the new reality of climate change?

These cases explore the impacts of industry shocks, resulting corporate actions that had a devastating impact on employees, and the legal conviction of corporate leaders for "institutional harassment. This case series follows the evolution of France Telecom from a national telephone monopoly to a private company facing two severe challenges: (1) The company's competitive advantage as a land-line carrier is being challenged by mobile carriers and the entry of new competition from other countries; and (2) the workforce is much larger than required by the company's new strategy, yet many employees are civil servants, making it very difficult to reduce headcount, despite many attempts to do so. As increasing pressure is mounted internally, the culture shifts from one where employees are proud to work to one described as "tense, even violent" and the physical and mental wellbeing of some employees becomes increasingly "fragile." The further impact of these developments is outlined in the (B) and (C) cases. The (A) case describes the development of the situation, the competitive challenges that prompted it, key decisions made by corporate leaders, and the impact of the same on various stakeholders. The discussion begins by asking students to apportion responsibility -how much is due to labor laws, to industry change; to past management; to current management; to the employees themselves? Have corporate leaders pushed employees too far, creating unacceptable levels of stress and unhappiness? What levers do leaders have to keep a business relevant and to do so in a way that is fair to all stakeholders? At its most fundamental, the case series helps students confront some fundamental tensions between the pressures and benefits of capitalism, the responsibilities of management, and the day-to-day and long-term impacts on employee well-being.

In the B case we learn that at least 19 France Telecom employees took their own lives between 2006 and 2009, 12 others attempted suicide, and eight suffered from serious depression for reasons reportedly related to work. Some of these deaths occurred in public places, others on company grounds. Labor inspector Sylvie Catala conducted an investigation and found that the "lack of consideration of psychosocial risks in the restructuring is the result of a policy implemented throughout the country... and that the company's top executives put pressure on middle management, who passed on this pressure to workers." She concluded that the company's actions likely "endangered human life" and constituted "moral harassment."

In the C case we learn that former CEO Didier Lombard, Deputy Chief Executive Louis-Pierre Wenes, Human Resources Head Olivier Barberot and France Telecom itself were charged for institutional harassment by French authorities, a first for a CAC 40 company. In December 2019 they were found guilty in a landmark ruling. Each was given a one-year jail sentence, with eight months suspended, and fined €15,000. France Telcom, which had since been rebranded as Orange, was fined €75,000 -the maximum allowed by French legal provisions at the time of the offenses.

Yueting Network Technology Company Ltd. (Airparking) was founded in Guangzhou in 2015 by a pair of former managers from a large, state-owned real estate company to solve a common problem in Chinese metropolitan cities: a severe lack of parking space. Airparking's business model, based on the sharing economy concept, allowed the company not only to optimize the distribution of parking spaces but also to increase the operational efficiency of parking lots through digital technologies and solutions. As the company grew, the founders pivoted their business model by spinning off an asset-management branch focused on financializing their digital technologies and parking facility management capabilities. By 2019, Airparking was a relatively mature regional start-up, and the co-founders were looking forward to future growth and looking for ways to scale both the Airparking platform and the related asset operation platform. Their dream was a ¥10 billion valuation for each.

After the management of Magna International Inc. (Magna) tabled a proposal to shareholders in May 2010 to acquire all of Frank Stronach's Class B voting shares for approximately US$1 billion, vociferous opposition emerged, heavily criticizing the process by which the terms had been agreed on and the lack of information provided by the board. The Ontario Securities Commission ruled that Magna needed to provide more information to shareholders. In compliance with that order, Magna released an amendment that included a report from its financial advisor, its advisor's advice to the Magna board, and PricewaterhouseCooper's evaluation of the deal. In late August 2010, a Magna shareholder needed to decide whether to keep or sell her shares, and wanted to understand what amount, if any, would have been appropriate for Stronach's Class B voting shares. As a consumer conscious of the environmental, social, and governance aspects of a corporation, she was also concerned whether Magna's board and special committee had applied good governance principles.

In 2015, the management of Haier Group (Haier), a Chinese company that designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, and serviced home appliances, faced a dilemma. Established in 2007, Casarte, Haier's high-end sub-brand, had sustained only a mediocre performance from 2007 to 2014, and its sales revenue had remained low. Had brand cannibalization occurred between Haier's mid-range to high-end products and Casarte's high-end offerings? Should Haier continue to develop Casarte, which would require more risk and investment? Or should it cut its losses and discontinue the business, which could hurt Haier's ability to compete in the high-end market?

Huluwa Technology Co. Ltd. (Huluwa) was a small manufacturer of children's smart watches in China. The company's smart watches could be monitored by parents in real time through an application installed on their phones. The product design, application development, raw material procurement, and cloud service were all operated by Huluwa, while production was outsourced to a factory. Huluwa mainly relied on its offline channels to sell products. In April 2016, looking back at the first-quarter data for the year, the company's operations director noted that Huluwa had sold and delivered 150,000 units to its distributors while it had produced 200,000 units. Puzzled by that gap, he was also worried about the production capacity stretch imposed on the contract manufacturer. How could the company manage continuing growth for the product?

In early July 2020, the US government was considering banning TikTok, a social media platform for creating and sharing short videos, because its Chinese ownership had led to national security concerns. The founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, had taken several measures to distance TikTok from China, including hiring an American CEO and establishing offices in Los Angeles, California, and London, England. However, ByteDance investors expressed concerns that the company's Chinese ownership would still remain a liability. How could the founder and CEO prevent a possible ban on TikTok in the United States? Should he sell ByteDance's stake in TikTok to American investors? Did he have other options?

Wes Hall founded Kingsdale Advisors and built it into one of Canada's leading shareholder services and advisory firms. Influenced by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and a series of social injustices-specifically the death of George Floyd in police custody-Hall had an idea to use his privilege, power, and position to make a social impact. He decided to risk his financial security and potentially jeopardize his reputation to launch a new venture, BlackNorth Initiative (BNI), to combat systemic racism. After an initial burst of positive reactions to the BNI, Hall was left with the questions that confront every entrepreneur: What problem am I addressing? What solution should I pursue? Am I the right person to take on this challenge? Who do I need on my team? Hall wants BlackNorth Initiative to have lasting impact after the momentum of the BLM fades. Just two months after launching BNI, Hall faced a dilemma: a leading Canadian businessman and philanthropist offered to donate $1,000,000 to the BNI if they would establish a cultural center for Black Canadians. As Founder and Chairman of the BlackNorth Initiative, Hall had a decision: should he accept the funds and build the center? Could a cultural center help dismantle anti-Black systemic barriers from the bottom up and help legitimize BNI with community activist groups? Or would the costs of establishing and running a center ultimately dilute his focus and diffuse the power of his initial idea?

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains but also drove experiments in local self-sufficiency. Self-sufficient production has proved to be an important source of essential equipment, parts, and supplies, filling the gap between do-it-yourself initiatives and mass manufacturing. As digital fabrication technologies get better, faster, and cheaper, there is the potential for widely distributed access to modern means of production.

The case "The Public-Private Partnership Hurdle Race: The Case of Delhi International Airport" is about the various challenges faced by the GMR Group who was the private partner in the Delhi Airport Modernization project. The modernization of the Delhi international airport was done under a public-private partnership (PPP). The GMR Group won this bid for the development and modernization, becoming the first private player to work with the government on an airport development venture under the PPP model. Through the experience of the GMR Group, related by its Chairman, G. M. Rao, the case explores the various setbacks and challenges to project implementation posed by the nascent and evolving PPP policy environment in he country. At the same time, the case also presents the government's viewpoint and efforts to deal with the evolution of the aviation sector in India by strengthening the PPP framework. Further, the case underlines the importance of having a strong, well-defined, unambiguous and forward looking policy environment for the successful implementation of PPP projects in India. The case also presents the complexities of making policy decisions in a democratic political system such as India's

This case describes the plight of SpiceJet, an Indian low-cost airline that found itself in an acute liquidity crisis and on the brink of closure in December 2014. By the month's end, SpiceJet had no money to fuel its planes, run its operations or pay salaries, airport duties and taxes. Oil companies had refused to extend further credit to the airline until it settled its past dues. By late 2014, the operational footprint of SpiceJet, which had ballooned to 59 destinations, deflated when the airline had to reduce its fleet to 32 planes from 58 planes within a short span of six months. The lessors demanded that the planes be returned to them to reduce their risk exposure in SpiceJet. In January 2015, Ajay Singh, former chairman and founder of SpiceJet, came back on board five years after he sold the airline to media baron Kalanithi Maran of Sun Group. Singh was asked to bring the troubled airline back on track, a task that was fraught with challenges. Apart from managing the liquidity crisis, Singh had to find a way for SpiceJet to retain its key routes with a smaller fleet and recover ground where SpiceJet had been forced to recede. It was also crucial to raise employee morale and win back customer confidence and trust in the brand. The case unfolds the structural challenges of the Indian airline industry, which is characterized by steep discounting and overcapacity that eventually results in the underutilization of assets. Only an airline with limitless access to capital or very high operational efficiencies is likely to survive in this sector.

Spreadsheet supplement for case ISB226

The three caselets in the series "Strategies for Firm Positioning" draw the reader's attention to the concept of firm positioning using Porter's Productivity Frontier. For any firm to stay ahead of the competition and build a product or service portfolio, it needs a clear strategic positioning that distinguishes it from its peers. Strategy literature recommends two generic positioning strategies, namely, cost leadership and differentiation, to achieve competitive advantage. These two strategies are very different from one another. Each strategy requires the firm to make choices about quality, operational excellence, innovation, customer centricity, and so on, which are often orthogonal to the choices made under the other strategy. This case series highlights the contrasts between the two generic strategies. Further, the case series shows what happens when a firm selects a hybrid of the two generic strategies.

Supplement for Case ISB229

Supplement for Case ISB229

Set in the year 2019, this case looks at the development of Basic Healthcare Services (BHS), a primary healthcare organization in India based out of Udaipur, Rajasthan, and its efforts to achieve sustainability. This case sheds light on the state of primary healthcare in India and, in doing so, unravels the underlying challenges of setting up and running a privately-led primary healthcare delivery organization in rural India catering to people at the bottom of the pyramid. It shows how building physical infrastructure alone is not enough to provide last-mile primary healthcare coverage to people living in the rural hinterlands. BHS, under the leadership of its Founder-Director Dr. Pavitra Mohan, engaged with rural communities to build their trust in allopathic healthcare and wean them away from pseudo-practitioners, and created systems that would address their health needs. This case gives readers a glimpse of Mohan's formative years and the many challenges he had to overcome to realize his vision of providing affordable and accessible last-mile healthcare. One of BHS's successful strategies was to engage with the communities it served and forge meaningful collaborations. A small but dedicated team of healthcare professionals and community workers delivered compassionate care and conducted outreach in poor rural communities. It relied on grant aid to finance its operations. The primary issue confronting BHS in 2019 was how to achieve financial viability and catalyze the growth of the organization.

The case traces the entrepreneurial journey of Indian media baron Subhash Chandra. It starts with his entry into a struggling family business in 1967 and observes his evolution from a young, aspiring entrepreneur to the chairman of Essel Group, one of India's largest business entities with interests in diversified sectors such as media, entertainment, education and infrastructure. Chandra entered his family's agricultural commodities business in 1967 when it was in dire straits. In the 1970s and 80s, he forayed into entirely new sectors such as packaging and amusement parks. In 1991, he set up Zee Telefilms (later Zee Entertainment) and launched Zee TV, India's first non-public service television channel. By creating and broadcasting content in local Indian languages, Zee reached a wide audience of viewers across the country. Due to a first-mover advantage, Zee instantly became a huge success. Over the next three decades, Chandra pursued new business opportunities in the media industry, with considerable success. In 2018, Zee was a thriving enterprise, with a global viewership of 1.3 billion and business segments spanning broadcasting, music, film production, and digital over-the-top (OTT) media. In 2007, to create a long-lasting legacy and diversify his personal wealth, Chandra entered the Indian infrastructure industry and bid for multiple projects in a short span of five years, winning several of them. However, unable to convert the infrastructure projects into profitable ventures due to unprofitable bids and execution mistakes, he started to accumulate significant debt. His personal financial situation deteriorated to such an extent that he resorted to offering the shares of the listed companies he owned (including Zee) as collateral to banks to take additional debt to save his infrastructure business. The case ends with Chandra, and indeed his whole business empire, in a precarious situation due to indebtedness and facing some tough decisions.