Search results

This case is based on primary and secondary sources of information. These sources include interviews with senior executives as well as documents provided by Mondragon and Eroski. The interviews were conducted on-site. In addition, the authors researched the literature on both organizations.

Eroski is the largest of Mondragon Corporation’s coops. Since its founding, Eroski has faced numerous challenges. It has responded to each challenge with out-of-the-box thinking. In response to the pandemic, Eroski become an e-commerce supermarket as well as selectively continuing bricks and mortar stores. As the pandemic is winding down, Eroski is considering how to respond to the “new normal,” which is largely undefined. The question posited at the end of the case is, “Will Eroski be able to hold to its social principles, maintain its unusual governance model and other unusual practices, and survive this latest challenge?”

Eroski of Mondragon is a complex and unusual organization. To appreciate the challenges and how they were overcome by its unique business model, a student must have a minimum background in management, corporate finance and marketing. Thus, this case would fit well into a senior or graduate class on strategic human resource management. It is also recommended for the strategy capstone course usually offered during the last year of a business bachelor’s degree (senior level) to ensure that students are introduced to what Paul Adler refers to as an alternative business model. It can also be targeted for an advanced management course or a strategy course at the MBA and executive levels.

This is an illustrative case analyzing shareholder and accounting outcomes and legal issues resulting from a merger of two major publicly traded companies. In today's business world, the “urge to merge” is tempered by heightened shareholder activism. In response to this activism, boards must proceed with care when negotiating mergers. Challenges to mergers that appear to be in the shareholders' best interest occur often. As is the case here, shareholders and their well funded legal representatives, seek damages for alleged bad decisions. Conoco Oil and Phillips Petroleum announced their intention to merge in November 2001. At that time the cost of gasoline spiraled ever upward and large oil firms put heavy competitive pressure on smaller oil producer/refiners. The merger described as a “merger of equals”, intimated that neither Conoco nor Phillips shareholders would receive a financial advantage (or disadvantage) over other merging shareholders following the completion of the merger. Immediately following the announcement, Michael Iorio, a Conoco shareholder, filed a lawsuit, claiming damages to Conoco shareholders from the merger of the two firms.