Search results

In response to the potential collapse of large financial institutions in 2007, the U.S. government committed trillions of dollars to loans, asset purchases, guarantees, direct spending to provide fiscal stimulus, expansionary monetary policy, and bailouts of various private financial institutions. The bailouts were especially controversial because public money was used to protect private financial institutions and their wealthy executives while ordinary citizens received no such protection. One outcome of the government's response was the proposal to enact into law the Volcker rule, which prohibited banks from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading for their own---not their clients'---benefit. Proprietary trading was believed to generate up to 10 percent of total trading revenues, which would have exceeded $5.9 billion in 2010 for the six largest American banks alone. If the Volcker rule were to become law, government agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would write the detailed regulations that would implement the law. These agencies employed civil servants but were run by political appointees with technical backgrounds. After issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking the agencies would solicit comments from the public, which would help shape the regulations. Executives of large banks needed to decide how to respond to this potential change in their business environment.

After analyzing the case, students should be able to: Understand and map out the various interests at work in shaping a regulation Develop a nonmarket strategy for a company facing a potential regulatory change Predict the likely outcome of a proposed regulation

In early 2004, residents of Inglewood, California, a working-class community just outside Los Angeles composed primarily of African- and Hispanic-Americans, were preparing to vote on a referendum that would change the city charter to allow Wal-Mart to build a supercenter on a huge, undeveloped lot in the city. Walmart had put forward the measure after the city council refused to change the zoning of a sixty-acre plot on which it held an option to build. Numerous community and religious groups opposed Wal-Mart's entry and campaigned against the referendum. Walmart promised low-priced merchandise and jobs, but these groups were skeptical about the kinds of jobs and compensation that would be offered, the healthcare that would be provided to employees, and the broader impact Walmart would have on the community. Inglewood was a pro-union community, so there was also opposition based on Walmart's anti-union position. On April 6 Inglewood residents voted to reject the referendum by a margin of 60.6 percent to 39.9 percent. Though smaller, less organized, and with fewer resources than Walmart, this coalition of community and religious leaders had defeated the global retailing behemoth.

After students have analyzed the case they will be able to (a) appreciate the importance of nonmarket factors to execute growth and market entry strategies, (b) understand how the decisions of political institutions depend on the issue context and the alignments of coalitions of interest, (c) formulate and assess strategies to overcome nonmarket barriers to entry.

The case deals with comparison of two events namely Bhopal Gas Tragedy and BP Oil Spill Tragedy. Specifically, the case compares the negotiation process and its outcome. In other words, the case compares how negotiation was carried out on behalf of victims of these tragedies and resulted in optimal outcomes in one situation and sub-optimal outcomes in another situation. It case also provides insights into cross-cultural issues in negotiation process as one of the events took place in emerging economy (India) and other one in a developed economy (USA). The case gives insight for individuals on how handle communication process during the course of negotiation.

The case describes the international problem of money laundering and summarizes U.S. bank regulations aimed at reducing money laundering activities. The introduction of H.R. 3886 in 2000 was one in a series of attempts to formalize U.S. banks' monitoring of their customers. The bill was prompted by a government report that named and criticized U.S. banks for laundering billions of dollars linked to drug trafficking, fraud, and organized crime. Interest groups in favor of H.R. 3886 were predominantly law enforcement agencies that viewed current anti-money laundering laws as ineffective. Groups opposed to the bill included the American Civil Liberties Union, which believed that the collection of more information about bank customers' activities was an invasion of privacy, and the American Bankers Association, which claimed that the legislation would impose unnecessary costs on banks. The case can be used to introduce the distributive politics framework for analyzing non-market issues and formulating nonmarket strategies in the context of government institutions. The epilogue reveals that H.R. 3886 died before it ever reached the House floor, but that an expanded version of the legislation ultimately passed---with the support of stakeholders who originally fought it---as part of the USA PATRIOT Act after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This stance reversal provides an opportunity to explore how events, public opinion, and the media can create windows of policy opportunity

Utilize a framework for analyzing options for non-market action – Formulate a strategy for nonmarket action – Recognize how public opinion influences the opportunity for non-market action through events and/or new information, political actors, media coverage, and policy windows

Describes the history of the tobacco industry and its emergence as an extremely effective marketer and non-market strategist. After years of success, both publicly and politically, the leaders of the tobacco industry are faced with mounting political pressure and the financial threat of litigation from class-action lawsuits. The leaders face an industry-wide strategic decision of whether to acquiesce to government demands in exchange for immunity, focus on judicial success, or develop a new course of action.

To evaluate the formulation and implementation of non-market strategies in the context of regulatory, legislative, and legal institutions. To understand how various aspects of the non-market environment interact and how these environments not only change over time, but change market competition within an industry. Further, to formulate and decide between firm-specific and industry-wide strategies. Finally, to appreciate and reflect upon the potential conflict between non-market strategies and ethical concerns.

United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products—which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.

United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products--which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.

In 2007, BP sought and received regulatory approval to expand operations at its Whiting Refinery in northwest Indiana. Had the project gone forward as planned, the refinery would have discharged significantly higher levels of pollutants into Lake Michigan, but would have also contributed to economic development in the region. The result of BP seeking and being granted regulatory approval triggered a firestorm of controversy from multiple segments of society. This case study draws from secondary sources to examine the positions of a variety of stakeholders who influenced BP's decision as to whether or not it should expand its Whiting Refinery. Relevant stakeholders included for analysis are citizen and environmental organizations, political groups, trade associations, BP's employees, and stockholders. The intended target audience for this case is upper-level undergraduate business students studying issues related to business and society, such as corporate social responsibility and sustainable development.

The case compares two U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) programs from the 1970s and 1980s: (1) “stealth” combat aircraft, capable of evading detection or engagement by anti-aircraft systems, and (2) precision attack of hardened ground vehicles from “standoff” distances, i.e., far behind the battle lines. Conceived at roughly the same time, motivated by the same strategic challenge, and initially driven by the same DoD organization, stealth combat aircraft progressed from idea to deployment in less than eight years---an astounding pace for a complex military system---while a demonstrated system for standoff precision strike against mobile ground targets was not fully implemented. The case highlights the critical role of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the DoD, regarded as one of the most innovative entities in the U.S. federal government.

The case highlights factors that facilitate rapid, successful implementation of radically innovative or disruptive concepts. Students are introduced to the organizational realities facing such projects, including issues of strategic clarity, interdepartmental competition and cooperation, executive leadership, and timing. Comparing the differences in implementation of the two programs in the case reveals issues relevant to any large organization seeking to bring innovative concepts to fruition.

The case can be used in strategic management, international business or ethics courses. In strategic management courses, students will be able to identify political relationships as sources of a firm’s competitive advantage. Students will also understand the role of ethics in the firm’s competitive advantage. In international business courses, the students will be able to analyze the role that corruption and bribery play in the analysis of a country’s institutions. Students will also understand how corruption in a host country influences a firms’ decision to internationalize. Finally, students will understand the challenges that firms face when serving customers in other countries. In ethics courses, students will understand the nature of state/business corruption, i.e. the abuse of public office for private gain and the concept of state capture, i.e. managers controlling the political system for their advantage. Students will be able to analyze the decision of whether to collaborate with unethical partners or customers.

Bell Pottinger Private (BPP) was a British public relations (PR) firm with a successful but questionable reputation of helping famous critical figures and despots improve their public image. In 2016, Lord Tim Bell and the other leaders of BPP were asked to create a PR campaign for the Gupta family. The Guptas were a group of businessmen headed by three brothers who migrated from India to South Africa in the early 1990s. By the 2010s, they had built a business empire allegedly thanks to a corrupt relationship with the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma and his family. The press and prosecutors were increasing their investigations on these relations. The case has two parts, which address two separate challenges and can be taught as standalone cases or in a sequence in two sessions.

MBA and Executive Education.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.