Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore all the strategies adopted by Uber China to gain more and more market shares of Chinese markets. It included localization of its core product, adaptation to Chinese demands and tying up with different Chinese companies.

The case study has been prepared after thoroughly studying Uber’s business in China. Secondary data is collected from credible sources such as the Uber website, newspapers, interviews and journal publications. This data helped in arriving at a basic understanding of the company, its objectives, strategies and the business model. The strategies formulated by Uber and the challenges it faced while operating in China are studied and explained based on this secondary data. Various published papers, reports released by reputed organizations and universities, interviews of managers and experts and research papers were also used to develop this case.

This case is developed considering the bent of today’s consumers toward sharing economy. The scope of businesses based on the concept of sharing economy is very wide and is increasing. China’s sharing economy sector was one of the fastest economies in the world. The case chronicles ride of Uber in China: from its entry in the country, strategies adopted, challenges faced and to the exit from China.

International business management at the undergraduate and postgraduate programs in management

This case presents turnaround alternatives for a UK-based company, Carpets International (CI), a manufacturer focused on woven carpets and suffering from the ageing equipment and resulting product quality issues during the late 1990s. The case profiles CI’s position in the UK marketplace as well as highlights the growing international competition from Europe and Mexico. Comparisons between customer’s preferences for carpeting in the USA vs the UK are included. Additionally, the case introduces first-mover advantages in the application of innovational ideas applied to a mature industry in another country.

This case study was written by the CEO of the company as the lead author. The case is not disguised.

This case is appropriate for undergraduate strategic management/business policy classes.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, Boeing and Airbus, the leading manufacturers of large aircraft, were locked in a battle for market share that drove down prices for their new planes. At about the same time, the two industry heavyweights began developing new aircraft families to address the future market needs they each projected.

Aircraft take many years to develop, so by the time the new planes made their inaugural flights, significant changes had occurred in the global environment. First, emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere were growing rapidly, spawning immediate and long-term demand for more aircraft. At the same time, changes to the market for air travel had created opportunities for new products. These opportunities had not gone unnoticed by potential new entrants, which were positioning themselves to compete against the market leaders.

In October 2007, the Airbus superjumbo A380 made its first flight. The A380 carried more passengers than any other plane in history and had been touted as a solution to increased congestion at global mega-hub airports. Four years later the Boeing 787, a smaller long-range aircraft, was launched to service secondary cities in a point-to-point network.

The case provides students with an opportunity to analyze the profit potential of the global aircraft manufacturing industry in 2002 and in 2011. Students can also identify the actions of participants that weakened or intensified the pressure on profits within the industry.

Audio format (.mp3 file) available with purchase of PDF. Contact cases@kellogg.northwestern.edu for access.

This case study is developed from financial reports, regulatory filings and news sources to explore the dynamics and outcomes of the partnership between Evolve Bank & Trust (Evolve) and Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. (Synapse), a bank–fintech arrangement. Evolve’s annual financial statements were analyzed. These documents provided a comprehensive view of the bank’s financial health and the impacts of the fintech collaboration on deposit growth and risk exposure. Financial data related to Evolve’s operations industry were gathered from reliable databases such as those provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation BankFind Suite. This included performance indicators, competitive pressures and market trends influencing the bank’s strategies and partnership outcomes. Major financial news outlets such as Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes, S&P Global and other government and industry-specific publications and databases, such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, were used to understand the external market conditions and regulatory challenges that arose throughout the partnership between Evolve and Synapse. This multi-source approach ensures that the case study offers a comprehensive analysis of both internal financial performance and the broader market environment in which Evolve during its partnership with Synapse.

The present competitive environment smaller financial institutions face, coupled with regulatory gaps applicable to both traditional banks and financial technology (fintech) firms, plays a significant role in increasing regulatory scrutiny of bank–fintech partnerships. Evolve strategically positioned itself to capitalize on the growing fintech revolution by forming innovating banking-as-a-service partnerships to extend regulated banking products to millions of fintech customers. Evolve’s most crucial fintech partnership came in 2017 with Synapse. This partnership helped Evolve triple its deposits from $436m to $1.5bn between 2019 and 2023.

Evolve–Synapse’s partnership exposed significant operational, financial and regulatory risks. Synapse’s unilateral revocation of Evolve’s dashboard access prompted Evolve to freeze account activities and revealed an $85m discrepancy between the $180m in customer funds held by partner banks and $265m owed to customers. Over 100,000 Americans were unable to access their accounts, affecting approximately $265m in deposits. Evolve’s overreliance on Synapse to manage fintech relationships left it vulnerable to third-party failures and regulatory scrutiny. This scrutiny highlighted the shortcomings and greater need for regulatory oversight of bank–fintech partnerships.

Did Evolve fail to adequately safeguard customer deposits? It is clear that the bank’s actions and inactions played a significant role in the current crisis. The insufficient regulatory oversight partially explains the inadequate implementation of risk management practices and customer compliance protocols by banks and financial technology firms compromising the financial system’s stability. As of early July 2024, no definitive solution had been reached and is projected that fund distribution will not be completed until October 18, 2024.

This case study is suitable for courses focused on financial markets, fintech innovation, risk management and regulatory frameworks within the banking industry. Students studying finance, banking, business administration or regulatory affairs, as well as participants in executive education programs focused on banking innovation or financial services, will benefit. This case is appropriate for courses in Financial Markets and Institutions with a particular focus on fintech and depositary regulation. A course in Money and Banking may also find this case relevant. Before starting, it is assumed that students have already taken foundational finance courses and macroeconomics courses and have a foundational understanding of financial statement analysis.