個案總覽

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?

Stitch Fix Inc. (Stich Fix), started by Katrina Lake in 2011, combined modern technology and online shopping with a retail clothing shopping experience. Customers subscribed to Stitch Fix and received boxes of clothing, shoes, and accessories based on individual style and preferences; a personal stylist was matched with each customer to personalize each box prior to shipping. A significant part of the company’s value came from its unique value chain elements, including sophisticated algorithms that permeated all aspects of the company’s value chain.<br><br>However, in early 2020, the company was facing a significant challenge, with both Amazon Prime Wardrobe and Nordstrom Trunk Club entering the industry. How should Stitch Fix modify its business model to stay ahead of the competition and possibly expand its boundaries to other customer segments?

On August 12, 1819, a crew set sail for the Pacific Ocean on a three-year voyage on the Essex whaling ship. On November 20, 1820, a giant sperm whale emerged from the ocean and critically damaged the Essex’s starboard hull. The crew consisted of the captain, two officers, three boat steerers, and 13 sailors, most of whom lacked experience. While the captain and officers of the Essex huddled to plan their next move, the crew trusted the first officer to make the crucial decisions about using the ship’s three remaining whaleboats for the long voyage home. Surviving the wreckage would not be an easy task; therefore, making the right decisions would be essential for survival. As the ship continued to take in water, the captain and officers had to decide who should go in each whaleboat, what direction they should take, and what provisions they should carry.

On November 23, 2018, the US jewellery maker Tiffany & Co. (Tiffany) received the final verdict in a years-long legal battle with the Swiss watchmaker The Swatch Group Ltd. (Swatch), which required Tiffany to pay Swatch millions of Swiss francs in damages (plus additional legal fees). The subject of the conflict was a strategic alliance the two companies had announced in 2007, which had once been called a "historic agreement" and a "pathbreaking strategic move." The alliance’s objective was to design and manufacture luxury watches under the Tiffany brand name and distribute them across Swatch's vast retail network and through Tiffany's own stores. How did this once-promising alliance come to be terminated in 2011, less than four years later? What lessons could be derived from the failure of this alliance?

Ireland-based Ryanair DAC (Ryanair) was the largest European low-cost airline, serving approximately 120 million customers in 34 countries in 2016–2017. The airline was considering entering new markets as its growth in existing markets had plateaued. The untapped Ukrainian market offered a huge growth opportunity for Ryanair as the country had recently signed a free-trade agreement with the European Union (EU) and was about to enter a visa-free regime that would increase travel between Ukraine and the EU. However, in July 2017, Boryspil International Airport (KBP) in Kyiv returned a co-signed service agreement that withheld several important terms and breached earlier verbal agreements it had made with Ryanair. KBP didn’t want to provide a preferential tariff for Ryanair’s flights to London because this would conflict with existing routes. It also insisted on solving disputes in Ukrainian courts rather than in UK courts, as Ryanair preferred. As the airline was confronted by KBP, Ryanair’s chief executive officer, Michael O’Leary, needed to decide what to do in order to enter the Ukrainian market: What were the available entry options and entry timing? How should Ryanair proceed?

Ashiana Housing Ltd. (Ashiana) was a small real estate developer in India, specializing in mid-priced domestic housing. The company was tightly run and had attracted investment interest from large reputable firms, but its financial performance had recently deteriorated—a state that was reflected in the company’s declining share price. The industry was also undergoing change with far-reaching reforms, which was leading to consolidation and the exit of smaller players. Did Ashiana have the right business strategy for the market and was this the right time to invest in the company?

By May 2020, Rivian Automotive (Rivian), a new electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer in the United States, had become a darling of the new battery electric vehicle (EV) market in North America. Rivian had not yet released any products, yet it had customers signed up and waiting in three distinctly different market segments. First 10,000 customers had deposited US$1,000 each for one of Rivian’s two electric adventure vehicles. Second, the Ford Motor Company, a Rivian shareholder, had made a commitment to purchase Rivian’s advanced electric skateboard powertrain, positioning Rivian as an EV component wholesaler. Finally Amazon.com Inc., also a Rivian shareholder, had pre-ordered 100,000 electric delivery vans. With three different markets, three different sets of customers, and three different commercialization challenges, had Rivian bitten off more than it could chew?

The case considers the entry of Germany’s leading retailer, Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co KG (Kaufland), known for its hypermarket retail format and low prices, into the Australian market. Before entering Australia in 2016, the retailer had only expanded into Eastern European countries. Australia was its first developed market. In April 2019, a change in chief executive officer (CEO) took place at Kaufland, with the new CEO, Klaus Gehrig, demanding more centralized decision making. In Australia, Kaufland was struggling to get approval for its larger stores. Competitors in Australia, such as Woolworths and Coles, were also gearing up for the competition, with Coles sending a team of executives to study Kaufland’s operations in Germany. In November 2019, after a series of weather-related issues in Australia, the retail price of several grocery items increased. Kaufland was still searching for suppliers and working on opening its stores. Experts felt that Kaufland Australia had the potential to make an impact on the grocery market, as higher prices offered by other retailers would lead consumers to shift to it. Going forward, Gehrig faced a challenging decision: Should he revisit the decision to expand into the Australian market? How might his competitors retaliate?

In the spring of 2018, the marketing team at Nike Inc. (Nike), based in Oregon, was faced with a decision regarding whether to follow the suggestion of the company’s long-standing advertising agency to sign Colin Kaepernick as the face of its upcoming “Just Do It” promotional campaign commemorating the 30-year anniversary of the slogan. Kaepernick was an NFL quarterback who had famously begun kneeling during the US national anthem in 2016 to protest social inequality and police brutality. At this juncture, the US political climate was extremely polarized, President Donald Trump had spoken out very negatively about Kaepernick’s “take-a-knee” protest, and the campaign would mark the first time in Nike’s history that the company adopted a clear political position in its promotional messaging. The company had to carefully weigh several issues, including the impact using Kaepernick would have on sales and on Nike’s brand image. Should Nike partner with Kaepernick on its campaign or pick a less controversial spokesperson? What market segments would be affected, and how? What were the implications for company sales and brand image?

On January 12, 2020, Michael McCain, the president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Maple Leaf Foods Inc., posted four tweets on the company's social media platform, venting his anger at the US administration over a civilian airplane shot down in Iran. Specifically, he expressed his anger at the loss of life—including that of the wife and 11-year-old son of an employee of Maple Leaf Foods—which, according to McCain, stemmed from “a needless, irresponsible series of events in Iran. McCain cast blame on US president Donald Trump for escalating tensions with an ill-conceived plan to divert focus from political woes. Should McCain, as CEO, have expressed his personal views on Maple Leaf Foods' Twitter feed? Would his tweets damage the company's brand and destroy shareholder value?

In 2018, the board of directors of the German utility company E.ON SE was presented with a deal for an asset swap with a major domestic competitor, RWE AG. The deal was meant to help the competitors cope with uncertainties and challenges caused by the ongoing transformation of the utility industry in Europe. In the proposed deal, a recently created RWE-spinoff, innogy SE, would be disassembled with the assets going to E.ON. Because RWE still held a 76.8 per cent stake in innogy, the transfer meant that E.ON could gain full control over innogy's assets. In exchange, RWE would gain a minority investment in E.ON and some other assets. A deal, if approved, would be a surprise to the stock market. Should E.ON's board approve it?

GrocerMax, an online grocery retailer based in Gurugram, India, had grown steadily since its inception in 2015, managing to gain a foothold in the highly competitive online grocery market. GrocerMax had also succeeded in achieving higher average order values than many of its rivals. However, in mid-2016, the company faced a number of challenges. As a new entrant, its familiarity and brand awareness among consumers was likely much lower than that of the established competition. How could GrocerMax increase its reach? What promotional activities and marketing strategies could GrocerMax’s management team adopt to drive more traffic to GrocerMax’s website and increase sales while keeping costs under control?

In 2018, the chairperson of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Nissan), Carlos Ghosn, was arrested for alleged misconduct and criminal offences related to underreporting remuneration and misrepresenting annual disclosures. Detailed investigations revealed similar misrepresentations by the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) Hiroto Saikawa, who was forced to resign. The actions of senior officials left a deep stain on Nissan’s reputation, causing investors to question the effect of corporate governance at Nissan—and by extension, at similar companies across Japan and the world. As details of the scandal unfolded, Nissan suffered negative public repercussions. Its share-based incentive systems, excessive focus on profitability, and cost-cutting measures had caused deviations from normal risk management procedures, resulting in the production of poor-quality vehicles and thus vehicle recalls. Consumer trust in the company dropped, as did sales and profitability figures, with a continuous fall in the company’s stock. The company’s new CEO and board of directors were left to make amends for the company’s future. They needed to determine how to strengthen the company’s leadership and governance structure as they worked to make Nissan sustainable and profitable once again. Should they adopt a typical Japanese model of corporate governance, or would a model from elsewhere be more suitable?

Robert Unanue, chief executive officer (CEO) of Goya Foods, the largest Hispanic food company in the United States, came under criticism on July 9, 2020, when as an invited guest at the White House, he praised the US President. Upset community members boycotted Goya products. Supporters of the US president, on the other hand, began to buycott. Experts mentioned that weighing into political opinion before the 2020 US presidential election was a bad business decision for any corporate entity. Was Unanue wrong in sharing his opinion? What could the possible impact of the boycott be on Goya’s revenues? What should Unanue do to manage the company’s reputation?

<p style="color: white; background-color: rgb(3, 70, 56); font-size: 16px; display: inline-block; border: 0px solid rgb(197, 183, 131); padding: 4px 4px;"><a href="https://www.iveypublishing.ca/s/product/01tOF000002kr3NYAQ" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"> AVAILABLE AS A DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE </a></p><br><br>In April 2018, following an in-store incident in Philadelphia that resulted in the unwarranted arrests of two Black men, Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) faced a severe public relations crisis. A video of the incident, posted on Twitter, quickly generated widespread attention, online criticism, and in-person protests from people who accused the coffee giant of having exhibited racial bias. Within a few days, Starbucks shared press releases that featured its chief executive officer personally apologizing and taking responsibility for the incident. The chief executive officer also announced that US Starbucks stores would close for an afternoon for racial bias training and education. Although many public relations experts and customers commended Starbucks for its response, others continued to criticize Starbucks, claiming that its response wasn't genuine, but merely an attempt to protect reputation and avoid losing business. Further, while the training may have yielded positive education for employees, was it enough to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future? What could Starbucks do to demonstrate its intentions were genuine? How could it correct its mistake, address the root cause of the incident, keep customers' trust, and thrive as the world's largest coffee retailer?

In the first quarter of 2019, A.T. Kearney Inc.’s managing partner had to find a strategy that would help the company move into the top tier of the world’s management consultancy firms. The new leader was only the ninth managing partner in the firm’s history, having succeeded the previous leader one year earlier. He was a member of the firm’s board of directors and had previously led the company’s global Communications, Media & Technology practice. He had also been named one of The Top 25 Consultants by Consulting magazine. After his appointment as managing director, he announced that A.T. Kearney Inc. would continue to be committed to helping its clients with their biggest and most important challenges. However, the firm faced a major challenge of its own: how to become a US$2 billion management consultancy titan as quickly as possible and compete against the industry’s giants. A.T. Kearney Inc. had to determine what would be the best option for the future of the company.

On January 2, 2019, Canada-based Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) and Randgold Resources (Randgold) merged to become the largest gold mining company in the world. Following the merger, Barrick’s new executive team communicated a financial strategy that emphasized a long-term focus, particularly on sustainability. Barrick’s executive performance scorecard—a key management tool used to direct executive attention and evaluate performance—had been introduced in 2013, after an overwhelming majority of shareholders voted against a proposed compensation plan at the annual general meeting. No changes had been made to the scorecard since 2015, despite changes in the organization and in the mining industry overall. An external human resources professional who was proposing a new executive scorecard for the company faced several questions: Should she emphasize the short-term or long-term incentive plan? Which metrics and weightings should be changed? Were the existing financial and non-financial measures still appropriate, and did they adequately reflect Barrick’s sustainability goals? Was Barrick doing enough to satisfy regulators, institutional investors, and the many guidelines and standards that had been released in recent years?

The City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (COE), recognizing that its once world-class waste management system needed major transformation, published an ambitious and progressive waste management strategic plan (“The Future of Waste”) on October 4, 2019. Among numerous initiatives, policies, and frameworks, the plan made reference to the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR), a public policy mechanism for increasing the responsibility of producers for post-consumer (i.e., end-of-life) product and packaging waste. Although such policies were typically enacted at a provincial level, it seemed inevitable that, if EPR came into reality in Alberta, the COE would have some involvement in promotion and/or physical post-consumer collection logistics (a critical enabler of any successful EPR system). There was, thus, an opportunity for the COE to consider how its new direction for waste management should incorporate logistical support for EPR, from a coordination/leadership and/or a physical perspective.<br><br>The issue at hand was whether and how the COE should be involved (logistically) in any potential EPR manifestation, which would include an analysis of what made a good post-consumer collection system; what existed in the COE at the time from current industry players, such as retailers, third-party logistics (3PL) providers, and providers of last-mile delivery services; and what specific role the COE could play (e.g., through waste and recycling collection).

Amazon.com Inc.’s (Amazon’s) global expansion from 1998 to 2020, started with investment in the United Kingdom and Germany and ended with investment in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2019, as one of the world’s largest e-commerce companies, Amazon had a 15.1 per cent share of the worldwide e-commerce market with operations in 16 countries, including both developed and emerging markets. However, the company was showing unbalanced performance across countries. For example, in 2019, Amazon was the market leader in the United Kingdom (23.3 per cent market share) and Germany (48.3 per cent market share), while it only held 0.2 per cent of the Chinese online retailing market, far behind the market leader who had a 42.7 per cent market share, and it held only 1 per cent market share in Brazil with the market leader having 23.2 per cent. Amazon faced critical challenges in developing its future international strategies. Should it continue its global expansion into new markets? What should the company do with less successful markets such as China and Brazil? Also, how should Amazon deal with the ramifications of an unexpected global pandemic event in its international strategy?<br><br>This case is an updated version of Amazon Goes Global, former Ivey product 9B14M122.

On September 25, 2019, an activist investment management company, which was sometimes referred to as the biggest activist hedge fund in the world, publicly released a detailed report advocating for Marathon Petroleum Corporation to be split into three separate companies, divided along three major business lines: oil refinery, midstream services (i.e., pipelines), and retail. The refinery company would consist primarily of 16 oil refineries in the United States and would retain the Marathon name. The midstream company, which would consist of pipelines, logistics, and oil terminals, would be formed from MPLX LP, the publicly traded subsidiary that was 63 per cent owned and fully operated by Marathon Petroleum Corporation. The retail company would be formed from Speedway LLC, the wholly owned subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corporation that operated 3,923 retail locations across the continental United States. The investment company argued that Marathon Petroleum Corporation's shareholders stood to benefit considerably from the proposed split. Was the proposition a good idea?