Case studies

This case presents the dilemma of a multinational oil and gas company, ExxonMobil, as it factors in the ethical issues related to the environment and cultural differences in deciding whether to proceed with building a pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, two of the poorest and most corrupt developing countries in West Africa. The many players in this project included the World Bank--which cofinanced the project and put restrictions into place that would hopefully prevent pipeline-related government corruption in both Chad and Cameroon--and many environmental and human rights groups that warned of potential disaster. The case also covers the environmental and social analysis of the areas that would be affected by the pipeline.

The case takes place in the city of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, a booming regional tourist and commercial center located on the Arab (Persian) Gulf coast of the Arabian Peninsula. The story describes Vijay, the Indian (East Asian) entrepreneur, his personality, background, motivations and management style. The focus of the case is on how this entrepreneur grows the business over the seven years leading up to the decision to launch a travel club targeted toward East Asian travelers in the region. The details of the new venture are chronicled from inception to its eventual closure four years later under desperate financial circumstances. The richness of the case is enhanced by the inclusion of details of the legal, economic and cultural factors that define the business context and business risks. The case provides an interesting and informative view of a part of the world that is “in the news” but largely remains a mystery to the typical North American student.

Russ Clark is a successful NAPA Auto Parts franchisee in Yuma County, Arizona. He sees opportunity in the neighboring Mexican city of San Luis Rıo Colorado. But crossing the border with an after-market auto parts store will require building relationships with others, lots of learning to overcome the significant barriers, and some savvy decision-making in addition to the usual evaluation of business opportunities. Clark must consider a location decision, product mix, human resource issues, and how to promote the new business in an uncertain and unfamiliar context. Clearly, his current American business model will require a great degree of adaptation to make the venture a success. This case was developed from extensive field interviews and shadowing Mr. Clark for a day. In addition, Mr. Clark and his store manager, Rigoberto made classroom presentations describing their experiences surrounding the case situation.

East Texas Oxygen (ETOX) delivered high-pressure cylinders of gases such as oxygen and nitrogen to twelve wholly-owned branches scattered throughout East Texas and Louisiana. Employees loaded and unloaded individual high-pressure cylinders off of and onto trailers manually and the firm had never had a related accident. Robert Jenkins had been challenged to decrease the cost of supplying the branches with cylinders and other supplies. He was considering recommending the palletization of delivery operations which required numerous changes within the organization. This case required students to determine the best routing for the delivery truck(s) and to determine whether or not the number of trucks and drivers could be reduced under palletization. Students were then required to do a capital budgeting analysis and make a recommendation of whether or not to palletize.

The ABB (A) case describes the situation leading up to a decision that has to be made concerning closing a manufacturing subsidiary of ABB and moving its operations to Thailand. The Plant/subsidiary manager is placed in a conflict position regarding this decision due to the matrix form of management structure employed by the parent ABB. His direct line manager in charge of the global product line wants the move to take place. He has the support of his supervisor, who sits on the Executive Committee of the parent company. The ABB Country Manager for Denmark wants the plant to stay where it is. The subsidiary manager also reports to him, as part of the matrix structure. The subsidiary manager has recently been promoted to his new position, with the support of the Country Manager. The previous subsidiary manager had been promoted to head up a larger, Danish subsidiary of ABB. The previous year, the Country Manager and the previous subsidiary manager had managed to over rule the same request, in no small part, due to their connections within ABB as well as within Denmark. The new subsidiary manager needs to make a recommendation as to what should be done. The ABB Transformers (A) case can be used separately, or in conjunction with the (B) case.

The (B) case follows up on the (A) case. The decision was made to leave the plant in Denmark. It was revisited one year later, and the subsidiary manager is in even more of a quandary. The former Country Manager has been promoted to the Executive Committee of ABB. At a meeting of the new Country manager (not previously from within ABB), the Product Manager, his supervisor from the Executive Committee, the former Country Manager, and the subsidiary manager, the discussion is primarily between the new Country Manager and the Product Supervising Executive Committee Member, who has also been given added responsibility for all of Asia and the Pacific region. The former Country Manager, now responsible for European operations, remains quiet during the discussions. He later notes that this is a relatively small decision in the context of European operations. The subsidiary manager still needs to make a decision, but is now unsure of what has happened during the past year to allow this issue to be raised for the third time. The (B) case can be used to demonstrate how politics, promotions, and transfers can radically alter the environment within the context of a strategic decision. The focus is now on organization culture and power, and on the problems of operating within a matrix structure. The (B) case should be used in combination with the (A) case.

Jan Jaśkiewicz was a successful small grocer in Białystok, Poland, a city of about 300,000. When Poland became a capitalistic nation again in the late 1980s, Jaśkiewicz was among the early entrepreneurs. In the late 1990s, multi-national grocery chains from across Europe began building new, large stores on the outskirts of most Polish cities, including Białystok. In early summer 2000, a few days before the case begins, local independent grocers had been called together by Lewiatan, a Polish wholesale grocer. Lewiatan could offer the smaller grocers the advantages of the chains: bulk buying, Lewiatan-branded goods, slotting fees, and cooperative advertising. The local grocers liked many of the benefits Lewiatan would bring, but were suspicious and wanted someone they knew to be the area representative before they would agree to join Lewiatan. They had called a second meeting to try and find someone to fill the role. Jaśkiewicz was a natural choice: he had been in both the retail and wholesale grocery business, had been in business longer than almost everyone else, and was well-respected. Jan was tempted. Not only did he want to grow his own business, he wanted other Poles to be successful business owners and felt that if he could help Lewiatan, Lewiatan could help others compete with the new, large, foreign-owned and professionally-managed stores.

In 2005, LPP SA was one of the fastest growing firms in Poland’s apparel industry, with popular brands such as RESERVED and CROPP. This case focuses on the apparel industry, LPP’s business and international strategies, and its internal capabilities. The case also offers a background on the communist rule in Poland and how it led to economic malaise that sparked the strikes by Solidarity under the leadership of Lech Walesa. These strikes eventually cascaded into the demand for reforms and the collapse of the communist regime. Thus, the case tracks Poland’s transition into an “emerging market” and the environment within which LPP developed. The case concludes by asking readers whether LPP needs to reorient its strategies and develop new capabilities to sustain its growth.

This case examines the ethical issues raised when businesses contract for the military during time of war. Dow Chemical Company was a military contractor during the Vietnam War and the primary producer of Agent Orange - a defoliant used to clear vegetation. Agent Orange has been linked to a number of serious medical conditions in war veterans and Vietnamese civilians. In 2004, Vietnamese citizens filed suit against Dow for illnesses they believe were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Dow thought the issue should have been addressed through political and social policy, while Vietnamese citizens and U.S. Vietnam war veterans believed Dow was ethically responsible. As the case moved through the U.S. judicial system, some of Dow's investors grew uncomfortable with how it was handled. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was left to wonder what his company could have done differently and what they could learn from the Agent Orange episode that might prevent similar problems in the future. This incident appeared to be a relatively distinct case, but in July of 2007 it was reported that the number of private contract employees in Iraq exceeded that of U.S. military personnel. Consequently, it is likely that companies and their stakeholders will have to address similar issues.

Workforce diversity is a reality and offers many benefits to business. Nevertheless, managing diversity poses numerous challenges. This case involves religious diversity, focusing on employers' legal duty to accommodate religious practices. In the case, the assembly line at Electrolux's Frigidaire plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota hummed with activity when suddenly a group of Somali workers walked off the line. The Somali employees were new immigrants and introduced cultural and religious customs which were for the most part unfamiliar to management. The employees were Muslim and left the work stations to observe sunset prayers, one of the five daily prayers central to the Islamic faith. The management dilemma presented in the case is balancing the demands of assembly line production with the religious requirements of Muslim workers in a legal and effective manner. There is a substantial epilogue detailing Electrolux response to the situation which can be used as the basis for further class discussion. To help guide this dialogue, a “mini-instructors manual” follows the epilogue.

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.