Search results

This case applies a stakeholder analysis to examine the trade-offs between the firm’s strategy and the interests of different stakeholder groups. A PESTEL analysis supports an evaluation of the firm’s situation. Consumer behavior theories on psychological ownership and territoriality offer a framework for analyzing the conflicts that arise from the inhabitants’ protests.

This case relies on secondary sources, including news reports, social media sites and company websites. This case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in a strategic management course in January 2019 at the University of Cologne, Germany.

In November 2016, Google announced its intentions to rent a building in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin to open a Google Campus, a business incubator for tech start-ups that would offer entrepreneurs support, workshops and access to networks. Following the announcement, dissatisfied local communities organized protests, in which leaders complained that “It is extremely violent and arrogant of this mega-corporation, whose business model is based on mass surveillance and which speculates like crazy, to set up shop here” (Business Times, 2018). Berlin’s Government supported the Google Campus plan; inhabitants rejected it with fierce and persistent protests. In face of this challenge, was it still possible for Google to continue its plans in Berlin?

This case qualifies for use in strategic management classes at undergraduate and MBA levels. Its focus aligns well with stakeholder analyses, PESTEL analyses and business strategy. In addition, for courses on organizational communications or public relations, this case provides a way to explore the relationship between Google and its stakeholders, especially protesters, in detail. Moreover, this case is well suited for consumer research and public policy courses (e.g., transformative consumer research) centered on discussions of territoriality.

Founded in 1971 and acquired by CEO Howard Schultz in 1987, Starbucks was an American success story. In forty years it grew from a single-location coffee roaster in Seattle, Washington to a multibillion-dollar global enterprise that operated more than 17,000 retail coffee shops in fifty countries and sold coffee beans, instant coffee, tea, and ready-to-drink beverages in tens of thousands of grocery and mass merchandise stores. However, as Starbucks moved into new market contexts as part of its aggressive growth strategy, the assets and activities central to its competitive advantage in its retail coffee shops were altered or weakened, which made it more vulnerable to competitive threats from both higher and lower quality entrants. The company also had to make decisions on vertical integration related to its expansion into consumer packaged goods.

Understand how strategy needs to be adapted to new contexts. Understand how to manage tradeoffs involved in growth. Be able to identify possible threats to competitive advantage as a result of growth.

During December 2012, Jorge Paulo Lemann, a co-founder and partner at 3G, proposed to Warren Buffett that 3G and Berkshire Hathaway acquire H. J. Heinz Company. Lemann and Buffett, who had known each other for years, jointly decided that the Heinz turnaround had been successful and that there was significant potential for continued global growth. 3G informed Heinz CEO William Johnson that it and Berkshire Hathaway were interested in jointly acquiring his company. Johnson then presented the investors' offer of $70.00 per share of outstanding common stock to the Heinz board.

After much discussion, the Heinz board and its advisors informed 3G that without better financial terms they would not continue to discuss the possibility of an acquisition. Two days later, 3G and Berkshire Hathaway returned with a revised proposal of $72.50 per share, for a total transaction value of $28 billion (including Heinz's outstanding debt).

Following a forty-day “go-shop” period, Heinz, 3G, and Berkshire Hathaway agreed to sign the deal. But was this, in fact, a fair deal? And what might be the future consequences for shareholders, management, employees, and citizens of Pittsburgh, the location of the company's headquarters? Last, what was the role of activist investors in bringing Heinz to this deal stage?

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to:

• Understand the influence of investment bankers on M&A transactions

• Consider synergies that drive M&A

• Consider the role of activist investors in corporate strategic decision-making

• Understand the impact of M&A on key corporate stakeholders

• Apply core valuation techniques to support M&A valuation

Understand the influence of investment bankers on M&A transactions

Consider synergies that drive M&A

Consider the role of activist investors in corporate strategic decision-making

Understand the impact of M&A on key corporate stakeholders

Apply core valuation techniques to support M&A valuation

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.