Set in 2023, the case documents the initiatives of the Safe in India Foundation (SII), a non-profit organisation, that aims to improve workers' safety and social security in India's automobile manufacturing industry. The issue is complex and multifaceted as the industry's deep supply chain has many small and mid-sized factories comprising skilled and unskilled workers. SII's four-pillar programme - supporting workers directly, improving workplace safety in the automotive sector through systemic change, improving healthcare and compensation policy at ESIC, and spreading awareness, especially by empowering workers through knowledge - attempts to foster a safety culture in the industry and among workers. In the six years since it was established, the signs of systemic change to improve worker safety have been noticed. However, SII's leadership team wanted to scale the impact. For that, SII's Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Sandeep Sachdeva, had to consider the strategic options and trade-offs involving key stakeholders that included the automobile brands, the government, and workers, among others.
On September 9, 2022, Singapore Management University (SMU) President Lily Kong launched the SMU Sustainability Blueprint at her fourth President's State of the University Address to an audience of over 600 faculty, staff, students, and guests. While paying attention to sustainability was not new for SMU, this focus intensified from 2017, when plans were put in place to considerably reduce energy and water consumption, as well as waste, so that the whole of SMU could achieve a carbon neutral campus by 2030. In 2020, when the SMU 2025 Strategic Plan was announced, Sustainable Living was highlighted as one of the three strategic priorities of the university. In the following year, the SMU Sustainability Taskforce was formed, entrusted with crafting the Blueprint, which would chart actions in concerted ways across four key strategies supporting the Sustainability Living priority: Cultivate a Greener University, Develop Change Agents Through Sustainability Education, Drive Impactful Research, and Foster Resilient Communities. By September 2022, SMU had made considerable progress in its sustainability journey, but these efforts had also come with their share of challenges. Among the many difficulties encountered were tough decisions over ensuring that all the buildings were energy-efficient green buildings, fossil fuel divestment, interdisciplinary collaboration in the curriculum development for sustainability education, and the coalescence of disparate research efforts across the different schools. Attempts to build resilience within the SMU community during the COVID-19 pandemic - a period of disruptions, uncertainties, and stress - had not been easy too. Looking ahead, Kong contemplated: What else could she and all at SMU do to accelerate and deepen the university's sustainability progress? What trade-offs would have to be made to achieve an ideal state of sustainable living?
This is a two-part case. Case A is set in October 2018, when Zenn Lee, Senior Analyst at a Shanghai-based securities brokerage, was working on the investment advisory to his clients on Kweichow Moutai (KM), the maker of the super-premium Moutai brand of baijiu, a Chinese spirit. The day before, KM's share price had hit the 10% daily limit down and wiped out US$9.3 billion from its valuation. The Moutai brand commanded a premium price in the market because of its iconic image as the 'national drink', its distinct taste, and five-year-long production process that kept the supply depressed against the incessantly soaring demand. In 2012, the Chinese government's 2012 austerity measures had stymied KM's momentum, but by 2017, KM had managed to recoup its revenue growth by adjusting its marketing mix. The comeback was extraordinary; it overtook Diageo to become the world's most valuable liquor company. By 2018 third quarter, KM's prospects had grossly diminished due to the US-China trade spat, economic slowdown, and dampened consumer sentiments. The situation was exacerbated by graft allegations, the government's intervention in pricing matters and a likely tax on alcohol consumption. With the lowest sales growth since 2012, KM's third-quarter results shook its stronghold, and its share price plummeted. Lee speculated on the options ahead of KM to turn around its fortunes - How could it further its revenue and thereby its profitability? Should it pursue opportunities overseas? Case B is set after the 2019 results of KM, when sales had expanded that year by 15.5%, and net profit had increased by 17%. Though not yet matching the level of its pre-2012 growth rate, it was a satisfactory growth rate that had defied the gravity of the broad-based slowdown and dampened consumer sentiments. Lee had to give, once again, his rating for KM's stock, and he wondered what fundamentals were driving the sales of Moutai regardless of the broader economic realities.
This is a two-part case. Case A is set in October 2018, when Zenn Lee, Senior Analyst at a Shanghai-based securities brokerage, was working on the investment advisory to his clients on Kweichow Moutai (KM), the maker of the super-premium Moutai brand of baijiu, a Chinese spirit. The day before, KM's share price had hit the 10% daily limit down and wiped out US$9.3 billion from its valuation. The Moutai brand commanded a premium price in the market because of its iconic image as the 'national drink', its distinct taste, and five-year-long production process that kept the supply depressed against the incessantly soaring demand. In 2012, the Chinese government's 2012 austerity measures had stymied KM's momentum, but by 2017, KM had managed to recoup its revenue growth by adjusting its marketing mix. The comeback was extraordinary; it overtook Diageo to become the world's most valuable liquor company. By 2018 third quarter, KM's prospects had grossly diminished due to the US-China trade spat, economic slowdown, and dampened consumer sentiments. The situation was exacerbated by graft allegations, the government's intervention in pricing matters and a likely tax on alcohol consumption. With the lowest sales growth since 2012, KM's third-quarter results shook its stronghold, and its share price plummeted. Lee speculated on the options ahead of KM to turn around its fortunes - How could it further its revenue and thereby its profitability? Should it pursue opportunities overseas? Case B is set after the 2019 results of KM, when sales had expanded that year by 15.5%, and net profit had increased by 17%. Though not yet matching the level of its pre-2012 growth rate, it was a satisfactory growth rate that had defied the gravity of the broad-based slowdown and dampened consumer sentiments. Lee had to give, once again, his rating for KM's stock, and he wondered what fundamentals were driving the sales of Moutai regardless of the broader economic realities.
This three-part case study is about Anu, a young Singaporean MBA graduate. Part A begins with Anu's story when she relocates to start work at her dream job at Tech-edu in Denmark. Soon after, she picks up cues that make her suspect that things are not quite right at the company. Tech-edu's founder and CEO, Sofia Vilkner, was an old and dear school friend, and the state-of-the-art learning platform that the firm was developing had appeared very promising with investors already putting in funds amounting to US$3 million. However, Anu is hearing rumours from the other team members and investors that the firm does not deliver what it promises. While she continues to have faith in the start-up and its CEO, she is beginning to have some doubts. Are there red flags she is missing out on? What should she do? In Part B, Anu decides to probe further and starts talking to people to find out what is going on. She also meets with Sophia, the CEO, to raise her concerns. Sophia denies any wrongdoing. Anu's immediate boss, Eric, manages to provide more information about what the firm is doing and its future plans, and Anu's suspicions are temporarily assuaged. Part C reveals how Anu is abruptly fired from her job and has to return to Singapore.
This three-part case study is about Anu, a young Singaporean MBA graduate. Part A begins with Anu's story when she relocates to start work at her dream job at Tech-edu in Denmark. Soon after, she picks up cues that make her suspect that things are not quite right at the company. Tech-edu's founder and CEO, Sofia Vilkner, was an old and dear school friend, and the state-of-the-art learning platform that the firm was developing had appeared very promising with investors already putting in funds amounting to US$3 million. However, Anu is hearing rumours from the other team members and investors that the firm does not deliver what it promises. While she continues to have faith in the start-up and its CEO, she is beginning to have some doubts. Are there red flags she is missing out on? What should she do? In Part B, Anu decides to probe further and starts talking to people to find out what is going on. She also meets with Sophia, the CEO, to raise her concerns. Sophia denies any wrongdoing. Anu's immediate boss, Eric, manages to provide more information about what the firm is doing and its future plans, and Anu's suspicions are temporarily assuaged. Part C reveals how Anu is abruptly fired from her job and has to return to Singapore.
This three-part case study is about Anu, a young Singaporean MBA graduate. Part A begins with Anu's story when she relocates to start work at her dream job at Tech-edu in Denmark. Soon after, she picks up cues that make her suspect that things are not quite right at the company. Tech-edu's founder and CEO, Sofia Vilkner, was an old and dear school friend, and the state-of-the-art learning platform that the firm was developing had appeared very promising with investors already putting in funds amounting to US$3 million. However, Anu is hearing rumours from the other team members and investors that the firm does not deliver what it promises. While she continues to have faith in the start-up and its CEO, she is beginning to have some doubts. Are there red flags she is missing out on? What should she do? In Part B, Anu decides to probe further and starts talking to people to find out what is going on. She also meets with Sophia, the CEO, to raise her concerns. Sophia denies any wrongdoing. Anu's immediate boss, Eric, manages to provide more information about what the firm is doing and its future plans, and Anu's suspicions are temporarily assuaged. Part C reveals how Anu is abruptly fired from her job and has to return to Singapore.
Globe Telecom, a leading telecommunications service provider in the Philippines, had a long history in the communications business. The company was incorporated in 1935 as an international wireless communications company connecting the Philippines to the rest of the world, and in 1994, it became the first company in the country to offer mobile telecommunications services. Nearly 25 years later, more than half of the Philippines' 100 million residents were Globe subscribers, generating nearly US$280 million in net revenue. But the company was not always so well-positioned. Despite its first-mover advantage, Globe had found its market share steadily eroding, and by 2010, its market share had shrunk from 42% to 33% in just under six years. Morale within the company was at an all-time low, and the workplace had become toxic. Globe was clearly failing in the execution of its strategies, and also did not appear to have the right capabilities to conceive effective ones. Spearheaded by Ernest Cu, who had joined Globe in 2008 as the Deputy CEO and subsequently became President and CEO in 2009, Globe set out on a transformation journey to meet the competition head-on. It established a framework that systematically addressed these challenges by focusing on three pillars: Network; IT and Systems; Talent and Culture. Investment into these pillars proved essential to transforming Globe's commercial offerings into an ever-growing array of sophisticated products and services supported by high-tech capabilities and entrepreneurial competencies. But was this framework robust enough to future-proof the company? Could Globe's sheer size and complexity of its offerings become a liability going forward?
Set in early October 2017, this case follows Utz Claassen, the founder and chairman of Syntellix - a medical parts company that specialised in the research, development and sales of bio-absorbable, metallic implants. Syntellix was founded in 2008 as a spin-off from the special research division at the University of Hanover in Germany with the intention of translating the institute's theoretical knowledge of magnesium-based biodegradable implants into viable medical applications. After the successful completion of animal testing in 2010, the company began human clinical studies of its patented MAGNEZIX® alloy used in compression screws, pins and plates for the treatment of bone fractures, which had traditionally relied on steel and titanium parts. After more than five years of meticulous hard work, by 2017 MAGNEZIX® medical screws and pins have met CE-approval for human use in 30 countries. The product officially launched in Germany in September 2013. And by the end of 2016, about 25,000 successful implants had taken place across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In March 2017, Syntellix AG founded Syntellix Asia based in Singapore, where it received venture financing and government support to make inroads into the booming Asian healthcare sector. Despite such success, the biggest operational difficulty Syntellix has is to continue making its way in a market dominated by gigantic players with huge resources, infrastructure and relationship network.
This case is set in 2017, when Co Gia Tho, Chairman of the Board at Thien Long Group Corporation ("TLG"), a Vietnam-based manufacturer and supplier of writing instruments and stationery products, is considering further international expansion. While Vietnam already had over 65,000 points of sale across the country, the company is looking to grow stronger by developing overseas markets. Founded in 1981 as a small family business manufacturing ball-point pens, TLG had grown to become the top stationery manufacturer in Vietnam and a market leader in the region. By end-2016, the company had a market capitalisation of approximately VND 4,000 billion (US$176 million), and total revenue of VND 2,162 billion (US$95 million). Its products were being distributed to more than 50 countries across six continents. Export revenues accounted for nearly 15% of the group's total revenue, and had been growing at over 30% year-on-year for the past three years. And yet, it continued to be a challenging proposition. What could Co do to enhance TLG's reach overseas? Moreover, given the global megatrend of rapid digitisation which was causing headwinds for the growth of physical office supplies in the more developed countries, how best could it adapt its strategy in the face of the changing dynamics of this almost commoditised and highly fragmented stationery industry?
Supplement to case SMU312. This is a three-part case. Case A introduces Rahzi Putera, a product manager at Samudera Pharma Corporation (SPC), one of Indonesia's largest manufacturer and distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. SPC had earlier that year entered into an agreement with Braxton Biotech Corporation (Braxton) in India, to distribute Epogex, a drug used for the treatment of anaemia. The regulators at the Ministry of Health gave a conditional registration that Epogex could be sold in the country, but only to the private sector, until SPC conducted a clinical study to monitor the safety and adequacy of the drug. Rahzi was tasked to manage the clinical study. When the Epogex shipment arrived, temperature readings showed that it had been frozen. Epogex's product leaflet very clearly stated that the product should be discarded if frozen. However, when Rahzi recommended throwing away the supply, he faced great resistance from both his colleagues and superiors at SPC, and Braxton. Braxton provided data from a quality assurance study it had conducted in 2012, which concluded that the product remained stable despite the temperature excursions. Rahzi now had to make a decision whether to commercially sell the once-frozen shipment of Epogex, which would not be used in the clinical study. Case B sees Rahzi sending an email to all the key decision makers at SPC, stating his concerns about selling the frozen shipment stock to the public, and strongly recommending that it be destroyed. However, he is once again pressured to approve the frozen batch of Epogex for commercial sale. In Case C, Rahzi speaks to his boss, Alia Iman, again to support him in destroying the stock. Alia agrees and convinces her boss, Bobby Suharto, to do so. Unhappy about how the incident was managed, Rahzi quits SPC shortly thereafter.
Supplement to case SMU312. This is a three-part case. Case A introduces Rahzi Putera, a product manager at Samudera Pharma Corporation (SPC), one of Indonesia's largest manufacturer and distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. SPC had earlier that year entered into an agreement with Braxton Biotech Corporation (Braxton) in India, to distribute Epogex, a drug used for the treatment of anaemia. The regulators at the Ministry of Health gave a conditional registration that Epogex could be sold in the country, but only to the private sector, until SPC conducted a clinical study to monitor the safety and adequacy of the drug. Rahzi was tasked to manage the clinical study. When the Epogex shipment arrived, temperature readings showed that it had been frozen. Epogex's product leaflet very clearly stated that the product should be discarded if frozen. However, when Rahzi recommended throwing away the supply, he faced great resistance from both his colleagues and superiors at SPC, and Braxton. Braxton provided data from a quality assurance study it had conducted in 2012, which concluded that the product remained stable despite the temperature excursions. Rahzi now had to make a decision whether to commercially sell the once-frozen shipment of Epogex, which would not be used in the clinical study. Case B sees Rahzi sending an email to all the key decision makers at SPC, stating his concerns about selling the frozen shipment stock to the public, and strongly recommending that it be destroyed. However, he is once again pressured to approve the frozen batch of Epogex for commercial sale. In Case C, Rahzi speaks to his boss, Alia Iman, again to support him in destroying the stock. Alia agrees and convinces her boss, Bobby Suharto, to do so. Unhappy about how the incident was managed, Rahzi quits SPC shortly thereafter.
This is a three-part case. Case A introduces Rahzi Putera, a product manager at Samudera Pharma Corporation (SPC), one of Indonesia's largest manufacturer and distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. SPC had earlier that year entered into an agreement with Braxton Biotech Corporation (Braxton) in India, to distribute Epogex, a drug used for the treatment of anaemia. The regulators at the Ministry of Health gave a conditional registration that Epogex could be sold in the country, but only to the private sector, until SPC conducted a clinical study to monitor the safety and adequacy of the drug. Rahzi was tasked to manage the clinical study. When the Epogex shipment arrived, temperature readings showed that it had been frozen. Epogex's product leaflet very clearly stated that the product should be discarded if frozen. However, when Rahzi recommended throwing away the supply, he faced great resistance from both his colleagues and superiors at SPC, and Braxton. Braxton provided data from a quality assurance study it had conducted in 2012, which concluded that the product remained stable despite the temperature excursions. Rahzi now had to make a decision whether to commercially sell the once-frozen shipment of Epogex, which would not be used in the clinical study. Case B sees Rahzi sending an email to all the key decision makers at SPC, stating his concerns about selling the frozen shipment stock to the public, and strongly recommending that it be destroyed. However, he is once again pressured to approve the frozen batch of Epogex for commercial sale. In Case C, Rahzi speaks to his boss, Alia Iman, again to support him in destroying the stock. Alia agrees and convinces her boss, Bobby Suharto, to do so. Unhappy about how the incident was managed, Rahzi quits SPC shortly thereafter.
In 2016, Inditex as a group with worldwide sales of US$24.9 billion, and Zara, as its flagship retail concept store, had recorded significant year-on-year growth in net sales at 11.5% and 13% respectively. However, despite a presence across 93 countries, Inditex's regional sales contributions were skewed. Europe, comprising only 26% of the global apparel market and exhibiting declining growth, accounted for 60.8% of Inditex revenues. The Americas, the second largest market in the world with 30% share, had the least contribution at 15.3%, and Asia Pacific, the fastest growing and largest market with 36% share of the global apparel market, contributed only 23.9%. Unlike other apparel producers, Zara manufactured 60% of its merchandise in the 'near markets' of Europe and North Africa, close to its logistics centres in Spain. The labour costs in these markets were substantially higher than Asia, where the bulk of global apparel production took place. Would this put Zara at a disadvantage in reaching out to the high growth Asian consumer markets of China and India? Moreover, while Zara had been online since 2010, its online sales in 2016 accounted for only 7% of its total sales. As consumers increasingly shopped online, would Zara with its reliance on stores and impulse purchases become another retail casualty of e-commerce?
This case is set in May 2016, and discusses the unfolding of a corporate governance saga at Singapore Post Limited ("SingPost"), Singapore's designated Public Postal Licensee. The narrative begins in December 2015, when SingPost announces that due to an 'administrative oversight', it had, in an SGX announcement on 18 July 2014, not disclosed lead independent director Keith Tay's interest in a 2014 acquisition. Tay was non-executive Chairman and held 34.5 percent stake in corporate finance adviser Stirling Coleman, which had acted for the sellers in the acquisition. The announcement added that Tay had, however, abstained from all voting by the board in relation to the buyout. In the face of a public outcry, SingPost decided to have a special audit conducted to examine the conflict of interest issues surrounding the acquisition. Regulators and shareholders alike expressed grave concern at the contents of the special audit report. What could SingPost do to win back its stakeholders' confidence, and ensure that its corporate governance standards and mechanisms were considered truly effective? And what would be the larger ramifications of SingPost's lapses on the corporate governance environment in Singapore, a country that prided itself on both the efficacy of its regulatory environment and the ease of doing business? This case facilitates discussion about corporate governance, and helps students understand the importance of corporate governance mechanisms in monitoring the firm's management and strategic decisions. This case study can be used to analyse the key internal governance of the role of the board of directors, and its role in controlling managerial decisions. In addition, the case can be used to explain how the external corporate governance mechanism, that is, the market for corporate control, also serves as an important factor in keeping a watch over top management's strategic decisions.
Set in 2013, this case discusses the challenges faced and overcome by JAL to turn around successfully from a situation of bankruptcy in 2009-2010. In 2009, JAL, Asia's largest airline by revenue and an icon of Japan Inc., was besieged by a severe cash crunch crisis. A skewed cost structure with too many aircraft, bloated workforce and unprofitable routes, aggressive expansion in non-core associated services, and the 2008 global economic crisis, had landed the airline with a debt load of over US$25 billion, an operating loss of US$518 million and a market valuation less than the price of a Boeing 747. Kazuo Inamori, founder of the electronics leader Kyocera Corp, was tabbed as the new Chairman of the airline and set out to restructure the organisation. Within two years JAL had revived to become the world's most profitable airline in 2011-12. In 2012, JAL's initial public offering (IPO) at US$8.5 billion was the world's largest after Facebook's IPO, and the company was valued at US$8.72 billion. Besides government intervention and support, three factors in particular contributed to JAL's remarkable recovery: rationalisation of the cost structure through supply management and operational restructuring; change in the corporate culture inculcating shared values among all the employees; and the new management accounting system 'AMOEBA', to drive accountability across all levels and divisions. However, Inamori's stepping down in 2013 raised a few concerns: would JAL be able to stay committed to Inamori's defined path of high profitability structure and people-oriented culture? Would it continue to learn from its mistakes in the past, and pursue sustainable growth?
This case has been set in June 2015, ten months after Unilever had re-launched Lifebuoy soap in Myanmar. The brand had performed exceedingly well, particularly in the metro and urban areas of Myanmar, and Unilever was on-target to achieve its goal of changing the handwashing behaviour of 20 million people in Myanmar by 2020. Despite the challenges of operating in a country where little or no data was available, the Unilever Myanmar team had put together a number of initiatives to make Lifebuoy the number one brand in its category in Myanmar for the future. But was it enough? Did the Lifebuoy proposition resonate with the population? And were Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan initiatives the right activation strategy?
This series of eight short two-part cases ("caselets") is written to highlight some of the most challenging and potentially destabilising moments in everyday work life in the Asian context. With globalisation, many Asian organisations are becoming increasingly diverse. Managers and employees often have to deal with tensions arising from workplace diversity. At some point in most people's career, they will inevitably encounter these difficult situations either as seen by the protagonists of the cases or as the bosses who have to manage the protagonist; or might be friends, colleagues or family members of the protagonist. It is hence important that these situations can be managed from different perspectives.
This series of eight short two-part cases ("caselets") is written to highlight some of the most challenging and potentially destabilising moments in everyday work life in the Asian context. With globalisation, many Asian organisations are becoming increasingly diverse. Managers and employees often have to deal with tensions arising from workplace diversity. At some point in most people's career, they will inevitably encounter these difficult situations either as seen by the protagonists of the cases or as the bosses who have to manage the protagonist; or might be friends, colleagues or family members of the protagonist. It is hence important that these situations can be managed from different perspectives.