The managing director of a new Malaysian producer of stainless steel tubing received a letter from the company's attorney in Washington, DC, informing him that the U.S. Specialty Tube Group had written to the U.S. President concerning stainless steel tubing imported into the U.S. from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia at dumped prices that was causing injury to the U.S. industry. For the next year, the managing director considered how he should respond to this threat, while at the same time increasing the company's exports to the U.S. so that it could meet its sales and profits goals. One year later, he was informed that a formal antidumping action had been taken against imports of stainless steel tubing from Malaysia (and other countries). He is considering what he should do now, both to preserve the company's U.S. market and maintain alternative markets in other countries.
The manager for Asia of James Hardie, a major Australian company in the building products industry, must decide whether to recommend a proposed $50 million investment in the Philippines. If James Hardie is to make the investment and grow the company, should it do so as a joint venture with Jardine, James Hardie's Hong Kong-based distributor in the Philippines, go it alone, or form a joint venture with a Philippine company? This is a major investment for James Hardie and marks the beginning of its new growth initiative into Asia after a period of consolidation. If the project goes ahead, James Hardie's Asia headquarters would be moved from Kuala Lumpur to Manila.
A production-driven company that produces televisions under contract has constant problems meeting production schedules. Because of personal ties to the owner, the finance manager from a holding company has been promoted to general manager of Kami to straighten out the mess. He faces major challenges because of his lack of production and general management experience and of credibility due to his age and lower seniority. A major challenge will be how to handle the hostility of the production manager who expected to be promoted.
The special projects manager of Mega Corporation, must make a recommendation to Mega's owner, about Mega's investment in a television production facility at Clark Special Economic Zone, the Philippines. Initially the investment was to have been Mega's first venture into being an original equipment television manufacturer; sourcing parts and selling the output on its own. Recently, however, Aiwa and Mega have had negotiations about the plant becoming a sole supplier for Aiwa's new initiative into television production. Under this arrangement, Mega would assemble televisions for Aiwa from parts either sourced through Aiwa or sourced on its own - if these parts were less expensive yet met Aiwa's standards. Mega's profits would be about $2 per unit plus 50 per cent of any cost saving on the components it sourced.
In early 1996, the vice president of the instant drinks department of Nestle (Philippines), had to decide how to respond to a major change in Nestle's environment. Until January 1996, imports of coffee in any form - green beans, roasted, or ground and processed - were prohibited. As of January 1996, however, coffee within a specified quota could be imported over a 30 per cent tariff. Nestle was the only foreign-owned producer of coffee in the Philippines and had over 60 per cent of the market, up from 52 per cent seven years before. Over the same period, total coffee consumption in the Philippines doubled. Nestle produced its coffee from Philippine-grown robusta beans, since Philippine arabica beans were of inferior quality. Outside the Philippines, however, usually a mixture of robusta and arabica beans were used. There were rumors that both Procter and Gamble (Folgers) and Kraft General Goods (Maxwell House) were planning to enter the Philippine market, initially via imports, but possibly in the future with production facilities.
The managing director of a new Malaysian producer of stainless steel tubing received a letter from the company's attorney in Washington, DC, informing him that the U.S. Specialty Tube Group had written to the U.S. President concerning stainless steel tubing imported into the U.S. from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia at dumped prices that was causing injury to the U.S. industry. For the next year, the managing director considered how he should respond to this threat, while at the same time increasing the company's exports to the U.S. so that it could meet its sales and profits goals. One year later, he was informed that a formal antidumping action had been taken against imports of stainless steel tubing from Malaysia (and other countries). He is considering what he should do now, both to preserve the company's U.S. market and maintain alternative markets in other countries.
The general manager of Qualibrands (QB), a Philippine company with interests in the auto components industry, must decide what to recommend to the owner of QB regarding a proposed four-way joint venture between QB, Autobelt (Malaysia), Autoliv (Sweden), and SMACA (Philippines) to produce seat belts in the Philippines. The financial projections look good, but the general manager is concerned that there may be other aspects of the proposed joint venture that might lead to the failure of the joint venture either in total or in reaching its financial and operational goals.
The acting controller and head of the accounting department at Texas Western Thailand has been reprimanded for developing and using a modified version of the standard company accounting system in Thailand. He believes that the modified system is more appropriate for conditions within his division and in the Thai environment. This case could be used in an international accounting class to discuss problems arising from different accounting methods among countries; in an international cross-cultural management course, or in an international organizational behaviour course dealing with the tensions between international standardization versus local responsiveness.
Labatt Breweries of Canada introduced its Ice Beer to the Canadian market, it gained rapid acceptance by consumers, and has spawned imitators and attracted the interest of brewers in the United States. The president of Labatt Breweries, Hugo Powell, must decide if and how Labatt should enter the U.S. market with its product and new brewing technology. The case provides information on the Canadian and United States beer markets, pointing out the differences that Labatt has to consider in trying to profit from its new product in the U.S. An in-depth note Note on the Mexican Beer Industry is available to accompany this case.
Alex MacDonald, president and owner of AWC Inc., a southwestern Ontario aluminum fabrication operation, is confronted with a decision of whether to install ventilation equipment that will negatively affect the financial performance of the company, possibly forcing the company out of business. His alternative is to ignore environmental regulations and risk being charged by government authorities for contravening the law. This case provides the opportunity to discuss several environmental forces that impact business decision making.
A small American cookware manufacturer must decide whether to try to penetrate the Japanese market. The risks were enormous because major commitments were needed and the sales potential in a new market was hard to pin down. (Two sequels to this case are available, Cambridge Products Inc. (B) and Cambridge Products Inc. (C).)
A small American cookware firm has been negotiating with the Japanese to sell in Japan. Major commitments had been made to develop the product. Just when everything seemed settled, the Japanese wholesaler announced that modifications were needed. Should the company modify its product for the Japanese market? (This is the second case in a series titled Cambridge Products Inc. (A), Cambridge Products Inc. (B) and Cambridge Products Inc. (C).)
A small American cookware manufacturer has been very successful in selling to Japan. Suddenly the market in Japan has collapsed. What should be done now? (This is the last case in a series titled Cambridge Products Inc. (A), Cambridge Products Inc. (B) and Cambridge Products Inc. (C).)