個案總覽

In April 2020, amid the global pandemic resulting from the spread of Covid-19, the president of the Broadway League, which represented theatre owners, producers, presenters, and general managers for Broadway and across North America, faced a challenge. On March 12, 2020, Broadway had suspended all plays and musicals. The president and her team needed to determine when Broadway might be able to reopen, what the Broadway League should be communicating to producers and guests, and what the reopening of Broadway would look like amid the global coronavirus pandemic. However, to reach these decisions, she first needed to determine the reliability of the recently released New York State antibody study and estimate the true prevalence of antibodies in the population.

On October 27, 2017, the share price of McKesson Corporation and two other major US pharmaceutical distributors dropped by 7–12 per cent over only a few days. The stock price drop was fuelled by reports that Amazon Inc. had quietly acquired wholesales pharmacy licences in 12 US states and, a short time later, formed an independent venture with Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co. to improve the cost and quality of health care for the US employees of all three companies. These two notable events in the US pharmaceuticals market did not go unnoticed by a group of students enrolled in a value investing class, who wondered if it was possible for Amazon Inc. to disrupt the US health care industry, or if the market was overreacting to the two reports. Was McKesson Corporation’s future in the pharmaceutical distribution business in jeopardy, or was its stock suddenly in a favourable buy position?

In 2007, Trek Bicycles (Trek) entered the Indian market. Although Trek’s market share in India was small compared to its global presence, India held an important position in Trek’s global aspirations, and the country’s potential for growth drove Trek to enter that market. The company strongly believed in innovation and in delivering value to customers through a bundle of services and schemes. Trek operated in the country through a partnership with an Indian distributor and in 2017 set up its Indian subsidiary. The company had a first-mover advantage with respect to the sale of super-premium bicycles in India, but in 2019, after more than a decade, how could the company increase its retail network and grow the community that was connected with cycling?

This case is set in 2018 in China and follows Daimler’s efforts to compete in the Chinese automotive market amidst fast paced changes which are underpinned by state driven efforts at fostering innovation. Testing its leverage as the world’s largest and most profitable auto market, China is aggressively pushing foreign and domestic auto manufacturers towards new and ambitious targets for electrification. At the same time, Daimler has to be responsive to the particular tastes of auto consumers in China, especially their preferences for on-line connectivity which are creating space for players like Tencent, Alibaba, and Baidu to become real competition, threatening traditional car companies’ ability to control the car interface.

On September 9, 2019, thousands of Amazon.com Inc. employees threatened to join the global climate strikes planned for the week of September 20–27, 2019. Employees were protesting the e-commerce giant's customer-centric approach and its lack of transparency regarding its carbon footprint. Pressure for more transparency was mounting—not only from employees but also from various non-governmental organizations, politicians, and competitors. However, transparency could reveal environmental issues that might lead to a boycott of the company's products and services. Furthermore, transparency and environmental initiatives could work against Amazon’s customer-centric approach, and would likely not be approved by the shareholders. Amazon.com Inc. needed to make a decision. Should the company adopt a confrontationist approach and steadfastly pursue its customer-centric approach in the interest of shareholders? Or, should it adopt a co-operative approach and change the company's business model to minimize environmental damage?

In September 2017, news spread of McDonald’s India terminating its franchise arrangement with its joint venture (JV) in India. The termination notice was the newest step in the saga of the conflict between the two JV partners—US-based McDonald’s and the Indian partner Vikram Bakshi of Connaught Plaza Restaurants Limited (CPRL). McDonald’s entered India in 1996 through a JV that was originally seen as the perfect combination to share investments, reduce risks, and succeed. The events between 2013 and 2017 showed that this was not true, and many reasons were suggested in the media for the problems—strategy, team, resources, and a mismatched value system. Did the former franchise holder CPRL have a legal right to use the McDonald’s name anymore? Could the partners resolve their differences?

Students need to practice talking about taboo topics. The ‘A’ case offers background on recent calls to end discrimination (e.g., #MeToo, Black Lives Matter protests) and highlights the struggles business schools, in particular, have faced in dealing with intolerance. It offers an opportunity for students to consider and role play eight mini-cases based on real events. Topics covered include gender, race, diversity/inclusion, socio-economic inequities, harassment, LGBTQ+ issues, white privilege, and ableism. The ‘B’ case asks students to consider similar past interactions in their own lives so they can personalize the process and make plans for how they will deal with such events in the future.

Since early 2015, Uber had been investing heavily in research and development for its autonomous vehicles to revolutionize the ride-hailing industry and provide better ways of competing and fulfilling its promise of profitability to investors. Constant innovation was crucial to stay ahead of its competitors. While this strategy was groundbreaking for the ride-hailing industry, concerns were sparked when one of Uber’s autonomous vehicles was involved in a fatal accident involving a pedestrian in 2018. This accident brought safety lapses in autonomous vehicles into the public eye and was deeply controversial. Consequently, Uber was forced to examine its corporate strategy pertaining to its innovation portfolio. Should Uber continue its current investment in autonomous vehicles? If so, what business models and strategies could Uber adopt with autonomous vehicles to move the company towards profitability?

The RealReal Inc. (Real), a San Francisco, California-based start-up engaged in the trade of used luxury goods, experienced significant growth in its revenue and customer base in fiscal year (FY) 2018, but it was yet to turn profitable after nine years in the business. The reported accumulated losses until the quarter ended March 2019 were US$280.98 million. On June 27, 2019, Real launched its initial public offering (IPO) at US$20 per share. Would investing in the company be worthwhile for investors? What parameters would realistically indicate the future prospects of an emerging growth company like Real?

In February 2020, Apple Inc. (Apple) was fighting litigation by one of the oldest patent troll firms (a non-practicing entity) in the United States, VirnetX Holding Corporation (VirnetX). VirnetX targeted innovative and cash rich firms and had begun to use specific US locations with patent troll–friendly courts as major hubs for filing litigation. For targets such as Apple, this meant resources intended for innovation were wasted in fighting legal battles. In collaboration with its competitors, Apple took several initiatives, including pre-emptive litigation and appeals to both the US and the European Union governments to improve patent laws and prevent patent trolling. How could Apple’s chief executive officer encourage innovation at Apple amid patent trolling issues? What strategies should he take to fight against non-practicing entities?

In November 2019, Saudi Arabia’s government officials and advisers had to decide whether or not to proceed with a plan to make the government-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) a private company and list it on a stock exchange. At the time, Aramco was considered to be the most profitable company in the world. Therefore, its initial public offering would potentially be the largest in history. The company’s market capitalization would dwarf those of global giants Apple Inc. and Google LLC. Saudi Aramco managed the world’s largest oil reserves and had the world’s second-lowest cost of oil extraction. However, there were concerns about the targeted valuation of US$2 trillion. There were also various other questions to be answered: Should the government-owned Aramco become a private company? Was the timing right to list the company on a stock exchange? What fraction of shares should be offered to investors? How should the largest initial public offering in history be priced?

On November 3, 2016, Jacobs Douwe Egberts (JDE) launched a bid for Singapore-based food and beverage company Super Group Ltd. (Super). JDE had already acquired 60 per cent of the shares but needed another 30 per cent in order to delist the company and take it private. The minority shareholders of Super faced the task of evaluating whether the offer from JDE was reasonable and whether they should tender or hold on to their shares. Their decisions would depend on the valuation of Super’s shares, based on financial and other relevant and available market information.

Google was once considered a dream place to work at for people in the technology industry. However, the company has faced fierce criticism in recent years for its attempts to suppress the voice of its employees. The past few years have been tumultuous for the company, which has had to grapple with employee protests over the mishandling of sexual harassment claims, retaliation for expression of their disagreement with company policies, and ethic crises related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For a long time, workers at Google have enjoyed what has become known as the legendary standards of a democratic workplace and corporate perks. Recently, however, they have taken to the streets to protest the destructive work culture of the company. Some discontented employees left the company; others were allegedly fired in retaliation for their actions.<br><br>Google had historically been characterized as “least bad” among technology giants in terms of the freedom of expression allowed to employees. Is this changing? Why were Google’s employees discouraged from voicing their challenges? What approach should company adopt to maintain the trust of employees in channels provided for freedom of expression of its employees? Could the termination of vocal employees be treated as unlawful retaliation? Has Google been struggling to handle workplace harassment complaints? Would alleged improper handling of workplace sexual harassment attract a legal action against the company? How Google should handle workplace harassment complaints in future to avoid legal battles?

In 2019, after one year in the position, H. Lawrence Culp Jr., the first outsider chief executive officer (CEO) of General Electric Company (GE) was faced with the task of gaining the stock market’s faith in his ability to turn GE around. During the tenure of his two predecessors (from 2001 to 2018), GE’s stock price had declined significantly, and investors were concerned. The new CEO introduced the lean management philosophy and restructured divisions like GE Power to enhance free cash flow (FCF), a key concern of GE investors. By October 2019, analysts believed that strategies taken by him were not enough to improve GE’s stock market performance. Could he, as an outsider, prove to be a better CEO than the insiders had been? How should he manage GE’s business units? How could he increase FCF and the market valuation of GE? Should he continue with lean management?

Between 2017 and 2019, The Walt Disney Company (Disney) faced two major scandals that threatened to damage its family-friendly brand image. Disney’s brand value decreased by 5 per cent from 2017 to 2018, although it remained the most valuable media brand worldwide. In November 2017, John Lasseter, Disney’s executive producer, was accused of illegal sexual misconduct at its Pixar Animation Studios (Pixar). Following the allegations, Lasseter left the company in December 2018. Further, during the June and September of 2018, Rian Johnson, the writer and director of The Last Jedi for Disney’s subsidiary, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC (Lucasfilm), posted unprofessional, aggressive, and insulting responses on his personal Twitter account to fans who hated the film. In April 2019, Disney chief executive officer (CEO) Robert Iger announced that no new Star Wars movies written or directed by Johnson would be put into development. Why did Disney not take immediate action to address these two scandals? How should Disney mitigate the losses stemming from the two scandals and prevent them from happening again? What should Disney do to further grow its sustainably?

<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/native-deodorants-sell-or-swell-digital-learning-experience/01tOF000001qb3mYAA" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"> AVAILABLE AS A DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE </a></p><br><br>The founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the direct-to-consumer deodorant startup Native Deodorant (Native) had grown the brand to one million active users in about two years. The company was founded in 2015 in San Francisco and had disrupted the deodorant industry by offering all-natural deodorants direct to consumers through its website. By cutting off retailers from the value chain, the CEO had created a feedback loop that helped him have an agile and iterative approach to his business. In 2017, he received an offer from the Procter and Gamble Company to buy his one-and-a-half-year-old startup for US$100 million. He faced a tough predicament: he could continue to leverage the business model of Native and grow to the next million customers, or he could sell to P&G for a nine-figure payday. What should he do?

The head of the South African subsidiary of the US consulting firm McKinsey & Company (McKinsey), has to address the implications of the firm’s involvement in a corruption scandal. The South African office was implicated in a scandal involving its local partner, Trillian Capital Partners (PTY) Ltd. (Trillian), and Eskom, a South African state-owned enterprise (SOE). McKinsey was required to partner with a local company as a condition of any contract with a South African SOE. McKinsey took on Trillian as its local partner after Trillian was recommended by a former client. Trillian was, however, associated with the Guptas, a family that the South African Public Protector (an ombudsman) had accused of using its influence with the South African president, Jacob Zuma, and his family for corrupt activities. The partnership (first with a company named Regiments Capital (PTY) Ltd. [Regiments] and then, following restructuring, with Trillian) directly benefited the Gupta family. More than three years into the relationship, McKinsey claimed to have discovered that its partner was politically exposed and under investigation by the South African authorities. McKinsey’s new global managing partner attempted to limit the damage to the company’s reputation by issuing an apology. However, the South African public appeared skeptical about the apology, and questions remained regarding McKinsey’s integrity. The questions left unanswered included the following: Was Sneader’s apology enough to enable McKinsey to quell the attack on its reputation? Should McKinsey do more to enhance its standing within the South African business community, or should it accept that its reputation had suffered irreparable harm?

On January 10, 2020, Samira Ahmed, a British Asian woman, won a landmark gender discrimination case against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Ahmed’s emphatic victory was a major setback for the BBC, which had been facing accusations of inequities since 2017, after it released the salary details of its top earners and a gender pay gap report showing major disparities in the way men and women were paid. Tony Hall, the BBC’s director general, had pledged to close the gender pay gap by 2020 or sooner, assuring that work was already underway. Was Hall heading in the right direction to crack down on gender inequality? What could Hall do to be at the forefront of change on gender equality?

Technology doping accusations were made when several athletes wearing Nike, Inc.’s (Nike’s) ZoomX Vaporfly 4% Flyknit running shoes won sporting events in 2018 and 2019. In December 2019, the International Association of Athletics Federations was investigating the issue and was considering banning Vaporfly shoes from the Olympics and other sporting competitions. Soon, Nike’s competitors, including Adidas AG, Reebok International, and Saucony, counteracted with their own versions of an innovative midsole component. With technological advancements taking place in several spheres of sports shoes, experts demanded that boundaries be drawn in terms of both innovation and the high price of athletic shoes such as the Vaporfly, whose ban could have financial implications for Nike. Could Nike leverage innovation to fight a competitive battle? How could it promote the use of the Vaporfly shoe, given the controversy surrounding the technology? What streams of innovation should Nike pursue for its growth?

In February 2019, Cognizant Technology Solutions (Cognizant), an American information technology (IT) outsourcing company, was ordered to pay a total of US$28 million in penalties to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Department of Justice. Certain payments relating to facilities in India were allegedly made improperly and in possible violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In April 2019, Brian Humphries took over the role of chief executive officer at Cognizant. What could Humphries and Cognizant do to recover and to prevent future incidents of corruption?