Search results

At the end of 2011, one of the largest food retailers in Brazil, Grupo Pão de Açúcar, or GPA (a subsidiary of Companhia Brasileira De Distribuição, or CBD), was reviewing its accounts payable terms with suppliers in search of additional value. Manager of analytics Maria Cristina Santos was examining the trade credit terms GPA had with Oalem Ltda, a family-owned melon grower located in northeastern Brazil. Oalem, like most small family businesses, was financed with bank loans and equity that was held predominantly by the family. The case examines how accounts payable (trade credit) terms should be set or negotiated between a large retailer and a small supplier, especially when the bargaining power between the two may not be equal. The case demonstrates that trade credit terms can be as important as the terms of more traditional forms of financing.

After analyzing and discussing the case, students should be able to:

• Determine when it is efficient or value-increasing for one nonfinancial firm to borrow from another nonfinancial firm through trade credit, as opposed to borrowing from financial institutions (e.g., banks) or financial markets

• Understand how competition or relative bargaining power can influence feasible and optimal trade credit terms

• Explain why trade credit can be a cheaper form of financing than the alternative forms of financing available to small family businesses like Oalem Ltda

Determine when it is efficient or value-increasing for one nonfinancial firm to borrow from another nonfinancial firm through trade credit, as opposed to borrowing from financial institutions (e.g., banks) or financial markets

Understand how competition or relative bargaining power can influence feasible and optimal trade credit terms

Explain why trade credit can be a cheaper form of financing than the alternative forms of financing available to small family businesses like Oalem Ltda

In 2014, PZ Wilmar announced a new oil palm business worth $650 million in Cross River State, which would aggressively expand Nigeria’s palm oil production. In July 2015, a year after the plan was announced, a report jointly released by Friends of the Earth US and Environmental Rights Action Nigeria alleged that Wilmar was not complying with Nigerian laws, and accused them of human rights violations, environmental destruction, fraud, and land grabbing. The multifaceted nature of the “Cross River State crisis” permits “close-ups” from different vantage points to analyze the economic, environmental, social, and governance implications of palm oil expansion from a corporate sustainability perspective.

The case was researched utilizing secondary data, all materials are readily available to the public. There is no disguise of any actual person or entity and no relationship between the authors and the organizations or individuals mentioned in the case.

The case is best used at graduate level. It is very well suited for a MBA-level sustainability, business and society, or corporate social responsibility, or business ethics courses.

The case is grounded on the stakeholder theory, yet offering a fresh perspective, leveraging on the uniqueness of the Nigerian context. The authors argue that, while the assessment of the stakeholder salience of environmental groups operating in Nigeria might be different vis-à-vis other countries with sounder institutional environments, the normative question on whether the company should address these claims persists. The authors also draw from the social movements literature and bring forth the idea that the characteristics of the Nigerian context may jeopardize the prospects of success of adversarial tactics such as the issuing of lawsuits and extensive media exposure, which have been deemed effective elsewhere.

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.