Search results

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.

The Tata owned Coastal Gujarat Power Limited is seeking to reopen Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with state owned distribution utilities because of increase in imported coal prices resulting from a change in Indonesian laws. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has decided to provide relief through a “compensatory tariff”. This is opposed by the power purchasers. Simultaneously, another Reliance Energy owned power project is seeking relief from unprecedented change in exchange rates using the CGPL decision as a precedent. The CERC and the power purchasers have to decide what to do next.

In the wake of the December 2015 Paris COP21 (Conference of Parties), and India's announced renewable energy commitments, Reliance Power is reviewing its renewable energy investments to arrive at a long term strategy for the role of renewable energy in its power generation portfolio and the financing of renewable projects. The case reviews the Indian government's policies to promote renewable energy; the evolution of the renewable energy sector; and Reliance Power's financing of renewable energy investments. The case requires identification of alternative long term strategies and their financing implications. This case serves as an introduction to renewable energy from the perspective of Reliance Power, a large private power generator of the country. These projects also provide a learning opportunity for Reliance Power to deal with fast evolving renewable technologies.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Fundamental Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of India, are very substantive rights. The rights, however, are available only against the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. The definition of State includes the Union and States' legislatures and executive. The meaning of these terms is clear and definite. The last entry in the definition is Other Authorities. This term has been subject to judicial interpretations. The Airport Authority of India Case was a landmark judgement expanding the scope of Other Authorities. It formulated that a public corporation, which was an instrumentality or agency of the government, should be considered as Other Authority.

With the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI), Competition law-class actions, especially with regards to abuse of dominance by monopolists, are slowly becoming unhappy realities with both government-owned as well as private companies. This case used Coal India Limited (CIL), a public monolith which was penalized recently by CCI, as a subject of analysis to delve deeper into various conceptual understandings related to public sector functioning, such as public versus private provisioning, natural versus designed monopoly, dominance versus abuse of dominance, corporate governance versus government mandated governance, and finally natural resource allocation.

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

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.

In 2007 Conseco's CEO, C. James Prieur, faced a complicated set of problems with his company's long-term care (LTC) insurance subsidiary, Conseco Senior Health Insurance (CSHI). CSHI faced the threat of congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, triggered by an unflattering New York Times article alleging that CSHI had an unusually large number of customer complaints and was denying legitimate claims. This threat came in addition to broader systemic problems, including the fact that the entire LTC industry was barely profitable. What little profitability existed was dependent on the goodwill of state insurance regulators, to whom the industry was highly beholden for approvals of rate increases to keep it afloat. Furthermore, CSHI had unique strategic challenges that could not be ignored: First, the expense of administering CSHI's uniquely heterogeneous set of policies put it at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the industry and made rate increases especially necessary. Second, state regulators were negatively predisposed toward Conseco because of its notorious reputation and thus were often unwilling to grant rate increases. Finally, CSHI was dependent on capital infusions totaling more than $1 billion from its parent company, Conseco, for which Conseco had received no dividends in return. Faced with pressure from Conseco shareholders and the looming congressional investigations, what should Prieur do? Students will discuss the available options in the context of a long-term relationship between Conseco and state insurance regulators. Prieur's solution to this problem proved to be innovative for the industry and to have far-reaching consequences for CSHI's corporate structure.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to: evaluate the impact of a regulatory environment on business strategy; and assess the pros and cons of various market strategies as well as recommend important non-market strategies for a firm in crisis in a highly regulated industry.

This case is the second of a three-part series that follows the managerial, strategic, and communications decisions of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) or Clean India Mission, the flagship programme of the Government of India to eliminate the practice of open defecation (i.e., not using a toilet) from 2014 to 2019. As of 2014, 550 million people in India practiced open defecation. This problem posed a massive public health hazard and economic drag for the country as well as a threat to global health. Written from an insider's perspective, the cases centre on the decisions made by a new Secretary of India's Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, who was hired to manage SBM, and the team he assembled. Case B discusses the start-up challenges for SBM, including implementation in India's complex federal system, workplace culture, and the deep-rooted behaviour of open defecation in rural India and the managerial and communication strategies formulated to address them. The case concludes by framing the difficulties with slow-moving states and monitoring rigour that the leadership SBM, with a new team, strategic focus, and early momentum, faced as the mission entered its final two years.