個案總覽

The case describes the family tensions and corporate crisis at City Developments Limited (CDL), a large and well-reputed Singaporean property firm that was the flagship company of a larger family-controlled business group. The gradual transition to the third-generation leader was marked by an aggressive growth strategy in China, which unravelled when the Chinese property sector experienced headwinds and CDL’s Chinese joint venture partner experienced liquidity problems. These events forced the family firm to write off US$1.32 billion in 2021, causing it to report its first loss in decades. Moreover, four board members resigned, with one citing “unresolved differences in opinion” as part of his rationale for his resignation. The combination of a corporate crisis and a family boardroom drama elicited questions as to what steps the company should take to recuperate from the adverse events and resume its internationalization strategy.

On April 14, 2022, Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter Inc. for US$54.20 per share, for a total cost of US$44 billion. Musk hoped to make the social media network a platform of free speech, and the company profitable and cash flow-positive far more quickly than its management team at the time. Musk’s leveraged buyout was mainly funded by a margin loan backed by his own shares in his company, Tesla Inc. On July 8, 2022, Musk announced that he was backing out of the deal. Almost immediately, a lawsuit was filed to force Musk to close the deal as required by the merger agreement. In response, Musk had to decide whether his bid of US$54.20 per share was still a fair valuation for the purchase, if a leveraged buyout with a margin loan was the best financing plan, and whether to confirm or abandon his agreement to buy Twitter Inc. If he chose to walk away from the deal, he would have to consider the potential loss, depending on the outcome of the pending lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On February 16, 2021, Slave Free Chocolate removed Tony’s Chocolonely (Tony’s), a chocolate company based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, from its “Ethical Chocolate Companies” list due to Tony’s association with Barry Callebaut, a cocoa processor associated with child slavery in West Africa. Tony’s, a B Corp-certified company whose founding mission was to eradicate child slavery from the cocoa supply chain, had to address its public removal from the list immediately to maintain the company's credibility. How should the chief executive officer of Tony’s respond to the removal?

An investor in NIO Inc. (NIO), an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer based in China, contemplated the role NIO played in the EV market in China and the world, as well as the differences between NIO’s business model and the business models of other EV makers. Specifically, NIO had built and operated a network of battery-swapping stations and often included complimentary swaps with vehicle purchases. Also, NIO was able to sell a car without a battery pack as long as the customer paid for a subscription service. Further, to fund the venture, NIO and other entities had established Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co. Ltd., which owned the batteries that were leased out under the battery-as-a-service (BaaS) model. The investor realized that it was important to understand the implications of these streams of revenue and how they affected NIO’s stock valuation.

Carlsberg Breweries A/S (Carlsberg) had developed from a local to a global player in the brewing industry, having focused on growth in emerging economies in Europe and Asia. This growth path was against the background of economic transition and political change in Russia—from optimism about opportunities in the new market economy in the 1990s, to increasing regulatory obstacles, political authoritarianism, and increasing local competition in the 2010s. In 2022, Carlsberg, more than other West European consumer goods companies, was exposed to Russia when Russian military forces invaded Ukraine in February. This created complex operational and ethical challenges the company had to address with urgency. The company’s annual general meeting was coming up, on March 14, and by then the executive board had to communicate to shareholders concerned with both the company’s financial performance and its international reputation—as well as to Carlsberg employees across Europe (including both Russia and Ukraine) and the increasingly impatient Danish media—what steps the board would take to address the crisis.

In April 2021, the giant US automaker Ford Motor Company was facing a decision regarding its Indian operations, which were struggling. It had brought in a new global chief executive officer—its fourth in the past decade—who was tasked with making this choice. The company could remain invested in India, either operating on its own or in a joint venture. It could also decide to manufacture for export or choose to exit the Indian market entirely. Ford Motor Company had to decide on an international corporate-level strategy, all while considering the factors influencing the changing Indian market and the rise of new technology. What would be the best path forward for the automaker?

Recent years had witnessed the social phenomenon of the rise of Internet brands. Looking at Internet fitness unicorn brand Keep’s brand commercialization process, Keep demonstrated the path of creation, product adjustment and upgrade, and brand extension logic of Internet app brands. Keep started as a single-tool app providing exercise content and data records, and gradually developed into a one-stop fitness and exercise platform by actively adjusting its brand goal, surpassing similar products to become the largest social platform for exercise in China. Keep then went through a bottleneck period where it had huge traffic but could not monetize it. Finally, Keep pursued commercialization, transforming into a comprehensive ecological fitness chain. Now, in April 2021, how would Keep respond to the competition and continue its strategic vision of providing a fitness ecosystem? Should its strategic focus continue to shift from online to offline? What should Keep’s next steps be?

Malabar Gold & Diamonds (Malabar) was established in 1993 in Kerala, India. By 2019, the company was a leading retail chain in India's jewellery market and one of the top five jewellery businesses in the world, selling their products through 117 Indian outlets and 143 global outlets across nine countries. Most of Malabar's domestic revenue came from the southern region of India, and the company was looking to extend its footprint across the entire Indian market. However, the country's jewellery market was highly competitive, with a strong presence of regional players, and consumers in each Indian state had their own unique preference for jewellery design. Malabar needed to find a strategy to expand its presence into the country's uniquely different geographic areas.

On the morning of October 9, 2021, almost all newspapers in India carried the news of the re-privatization of Air India. They celebrated the move by the Government of India to hand back the airline to its original owner, the Tata group. Tata Airlines was founded in 1932 as India’s first airline. The Government of India nationalized the airline in 1953. In October 2021, nearly seven decades after its nationalization, Tata Sons and the Tata group, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Talace Private Limited, acquired Air India again, bringing a halt to the years of effort by the government to re-privatize the national carrier. The re-privatization gave the Tata group full control of Air India and its low-cost airline, Air India Express, and a 50 per cent stake in Air India SATS Airport Services Private Ltd (AISATS), the airport and cargo-handling service company. <br><br>However, the restoration of Air India as a renowned, profit-making airline was an uphill battle accompanied by myriad challenges. The Tata group ran two airlines in India: Tata SIA Airlines Limited (operating as Vistara), in which it held a 51 per cent stake; and Capital A Berhad (operating as AirAsia) with an 80 per cent stake. In financial year 2020–21, both airlines incurred significant losses. The responsibility of rebuilding Air India at such a precarious juncture could have become yet another adaunting task for the Tata group. Did the Tata group make the right move by acquiring Air India? What should the Tata group do to make Air India regain its lost glory, and how should it prioritize what needed to be addressed to achieve this? How could Air India overcome the industry- and company-level challenges it faced?

In May 2021, Claire Reid, the founder of social enterprise start-up Reel Gardening, spoke about her ambitious ten-year plan to help secure nutritious food for impoverished people in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Reel Gardening produced and sold a paper strip packed with seeds and fertilizer. Although the company had grown significantly, it had to manage the dual mission of social contribution and financial sustainability. The company had to determine whether expansion would shift it away from its social mission. Should Reid pursue an ambitious growth strategy, or should she keep the company small, grow it slowly, and focus on the larger social impact? Going forward, how should the company manage its growth, both strategically and financially?

Fast Retailing Co. Ltd.’s UNIQLO brand (UNIQLO) was planning to relaunch +J, its collaboration with the legendary high-end designer Jil Sander in the fall of 2020; however, the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of that year, causing many consumers to spend less on clothes and more on essentials. Just like the first launch of the +J collection in 2009, this launch would once again happen during a global recession. The affordable street fashion brand faced a challenging decision regarding whether to reintroduce the higher-priced collaboration brand amidst this unprecedented situation.

Steak ’n Shake, one of America’s oldest and most iconic fast-food chains, was founded in Normal, Illinois, in 1934. When Biglari Holdings assumed control of Steak ’n Shake in August 2008, the company was struggling and incurring losses of approximately US$100,000 per day. To turn the company around, the new owner implemented an aggressive pricing-discount strategy marketed as “4 under $4” that offered any of four different meals for under $4. The strategy worked. Steak ’n Shake went on to post seven consecutive years of same-store sales increases. However, in 2016, sales began to drop, and the company posted five consecutive years of declining store sales. The price-discounting strategy may have been critical in reversing the company’s fortunes, but had it also led to Steak ’n Shake’s current issues? Should Biglari Holdings consider raising prices of menu items? Would customers accept paying higher prices after being accustomed to Steak ’n Shake’s traditionally low pricing strategy?

Blu-Smart Mobility Pvt. Ltd. (BluSmart) was India’s first company to foray into the electric mobility space. Launched in 2019, BluSmart offered ride sharing, car sharing, and shared charging services, and aimed to make India a pollution-free country by providing customers with a complete urban mobility solution. Within a year, BluSmart had garnered investors’ attention and received millions in funding to grow its fleet. It also planned to expand its three services to other Indian cities. However, BluSmart’s future in India was not without challenges. How would these constraints affect BluSmart’s growth, and how could it expand in the Indian market?

The Serum Institute of India (SII), the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by volume, faced a unique challenge in the manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to its major stakeholders. SII had COVID-19 vaccine manufacture and supply commitments to COVAX, a joint initiative ensuring equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for all countries and a transfer technology (licensing) agreement with AstraZeneca PLC to supply its COVID-19 vaccine. However, a sudden surge of COVID-19 cases in India during the second wave of the pandemic sharply increased demand for COVID-19 vaccines in the country, forcing the government of India to temporarily ban the export of vaccines from India. At the same time, a ban imposed by the United States on the export of critical raw materials and components used for vaccine manufacturing threatened to bring the vaccine production process at SII to a halt. SII’s chief executive officer had to now juggle meeting domestic demand within India and fulfilling SII’s international supply commitments. Failing to deliver on the commitments would not only spell legal trouble but also pose long-term reputational and business risks for his company. He had few options to navigate the situation.

The chief executive officer of McLaren Racing (McLaren), is considering the next strategic investment for the upcoming Formula 1 (F1) 2020 racing season. With goals to win the World Constructors’ Championship and challenge the top three F1 teams, the McLaren team must consider the benefits and challenges of two options: changing engine suppliers for radical improvement, or staying with the current engine supplier for incremental innovation. Adopting a new engine (Mercedes) would offer comparatively more speed than staying with the old engine; however, millions of data points collected from the old engine would no longer be applicable for future iterations. Alternatively, staying with the old engine (Renault) would allow McLaren to incrementally improve upon its existing car, but the fast innovation cycles in F1 mean McLaren must carefully weigh the possibility of diminishing benefits associated with this option.<br><br>In a highly uncertain environment with fast-paced design cycles, F1 offers a unique setting to understand how organizations in an innovation-based industry balance the competition between radical and incremental innovation. The trade-offs offered by these two approaches are further compounded by competitive innovation cycles, high costs, tight timelines, and planning limitations due to a considerable degree of luck on the race tracks.

California-based Intel Corporation (Intel) was one of the world’s leading semiconductor circuit firms. In July 2020, manufacturing delays with Intel’s 10 nanometre (nm) and 7 nm chips were adversely affecting the company’s customers at a time when demand for personal computers and laptops was at its peak. Unlike its competitors, Intel was vertically integrated. Competitors such as Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. had outsourced their chip manufacturing to leading contract manufacturers such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) and were experiencing better market capitalization growth by focusing on designing chips for PCs and other product categories. TSMC had become the leading contract manufacturer for chips globally. Intel’s former chief executive officer (CEO) believed that Intel’s chip quality was the best because its manufacturing facilities were in house. At the same time, geopolitical issues between Taiwan, the United States, and China meant that regulatory authorities in the United States were not in favour of outsourcing critical chip manufacturing. In January 2021, Intel’s newly appointed CEO would have to decide whether Intel should outsource chip manufacturing to a contract manufacturer like TSMC and whether, in the long run, Intel should remain a vertically integrated unit or spin off its manufacturing division.

In early 2020, Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines) faced severe liquidity issues as the global pandemic halted its flights and uncertainty loomed. Erstwhile massive cash reserves were quickly running out, and the airline’s executives pondered how to save the company from insolvency. Singapore Airlines’ majority shareholder, Temasek Holdings Limited, agreed to subscribe to a massive capital-raising exercise of up to S$15 billion via a proposed rights offer and mandatory convertible bonds (MCBs). Although minority shareholders were not convinced that the rights issue would be a good investment in such uncertain times, they had to decide whether to vote for it and whether to subscribe to the rights issue and MCBs.

<p style="color: rgb(197, 183, 131);"><strong> AWARD WINNER - Responsible Leadership Category at European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) Case Writing Competition</strong></p><br>In early 2021, McKinsey & Company (McKinsey) agreed to pay US$573 million to end US state-level investigations into claims that it had helped exacerbate the global opioid crisis. Tom Peters, an influential and highly respected management guru, was upset by how far his former employer had been willing to go in helping US drug maker Purdue Pharma LP increase sales of OxyContin, a narcotic-based painkiller that helped drive an opioid epidemic responsible for hundreds of thousands of tragic deaths. As far as Peters was concerned, there was no question as to whether what McKinsey did was wrong: it had ignored the “moral responsibility of business” by helping an unethical client maximize profit by aggressively promoting the wide-scale use of a highly addictive drug. In addition to asking why McKinsey was still open for business, Peters posed a previously unimaginable question: “At this moment in time, why would anyone want to go to work for McKinsey?”

VH1, MTV, and LOGO were all popular television channels owned by the Paramount television network. One of the most successful shows on LOGO was RuPaul’s Drag Race, a reality television show featuring drag queens. Paramount was considering moving RuPaul’s Drag Race off LOGO to a different platform within the Paramount portfolio in 2017. Before deciding where RuPaul’s Drag Race would air, Paramount needed to determine whether the show could be successful on another platform given its current fan base, how the potential move would affect the show’s ratings, and whether the positioning or targeting strategy for the series would need to change if it were moved.

Beijing’s Palace Museum was facing the threat of becoming irrelevant and obsolete. A former imperial palace, it housed thousands of priceless cultural relics of historical importance and was once a destination in high demand. However, over time, the museum found its popularity with modern youth was waning. To address this problem, the Palace Museum chose to follow in the footsteps of other global museums and in 1998, launched a digital transformation. By June 2020, the museum had made steady progress in its digitalization over the previous two decades. It formed partnerships with online media platforms and experimented with innovative technology in key areas of its systems and structures. However, this transformation did not come without criticism. Was the museum sacrificing its integrity and its cultural import by leaning too heavily on science and technology? If people could access the collections online, would anyone still bother to visit? The museum was challenged to weigh the risks and benefits of digital transformation.