By late 2018, a Singapore-based non-profit organization, billionBricks, had completed seven projects, rehabilitating more than a thousand homeless and disaster-stricken people in Asia. Its tent product was widely accepted and could, it was projected, meet the needs of millions of homeless people. Despite these achievements, the co-founder and chief executive officer felt that the company’s performance had not met his expectations. A key challenge was communicating with those who needed homes: the company’s traditional methods of communication were ineffective in reaching out to a marginalized population challenged by illiteracy and access to information. However, the prime minister of India had just announced his ambitious plan to end India’s homelessness and sought entrepreneurs for idea generation and execution. Should billionBricks participate in the government housing project to grow its Indian customer base, even if doing so included the risk of potential failure? Or should the company focus instead on other projects and risk being locked out of future housing projects in India?

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In early 2019, Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. (AGC), a diversified Japanese company, was at a critical juncture in its evolution. Three years earlier, AGC had released its Vision 2025, which set a goal for the company to continue as a leading global provider of materials and solutions that improved the daily lives of people around the world. Its financial performance had improved significantly over the previous five years, but profitability remained modest, with operating profit margins slightly above 8 per cent. The modest profitability of the company belied a strong base of technologies in glass, chemicals, electronics, and ceramics. AGC could potentially use these strengths to develop and market high value-added products in varied sectors such as mobility, construction, new energy, and life sciences. To effectively exploit future opportunities, however, the company needed to devise and implement novel strategies, overcome competitive challenges, and align its internal organization. Specifically, it would need to extend or modify its globalization strategy by developing a differentiated strategy for combinations of products and countries, develop new competencies in areas such as biologics, and choose the appropriate entry modes to balance financial and strategic implications. How should AGC proceed toward achieving its Vision 2025 goals?

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

For 160 years, Singapore Post had been one of Singapore’s main postal service providers, delivering trusted and reliable postal services to homes and businesses. However, in 2019, Singapore Post was plagued by recent service lapses and operational problems, which had elicited customer complaints and concern from various stakeholders. Singapore Post was also facing increasing pressure from rising customer expectations, surging mail volumes, and the growing popularity of e-commerce. In response, Singapore Post pursued several initiatives to improve service operations and maintain its competitiveness in the postal industry. However, the company needed to devise a long-term plan to address recent problems, market changes, and deeply-rooted operational issues—and to regain consumer confidence over the long term.

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In 2018, Changsheng Bio-technology Co., Ltd. (Changsheng), a leading biopharmaceutical company and one of the market leaders in vaccines, was found to have falsified its production and inspection data and to have sold substandard vaccines in the Chinese market. The unethical conduct triggered widespread public anger and immediate government intervention. What actions could Changsheng take to mitigate the effect of this scandal?

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

On February 24, 2016, HTL International Holdings Ltd (HTL), a Singapore-based furniture company, announced that it had entered into a purchase agreement with Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co. Ltd (Yihua). According to the agreement, which was subject to approvals, Yihua would pay SG$1.00 for each share of HTL. However, the agreement required that HTL meet set profit targets in each of the next three years. A compensation agreement between HTL’s controlling shareholder and Yihua stipulated that if HTL did not make its profit targets, HTL’s controlling shareholder would make up the shortfall to Yihua. When the agreement was announced, HTL’s share price was at $0.70, and the $0.30 gap signalled uncertainty about whether Yihua’s shareholders would agree to the acquisition. Minority shareholders and potential investors, who were not bound by the profit guarantee, needed to decide whether they should buy, sell, or hold HTL’s shares.

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

Mary Chia Holdings Limited (MCH) was a provider of lifestyle and wellness services for women and men in Singapore and Malaysia. Listed on the Singapore Catalist, the company had experienced a decline in financial performance and share price. On August 24, 2017, MCH announced that its founder would sell her 60.98 per cent stake to Suki Sushi Private Ltd., an unlisted company tightly controlled by the daughter and son-in-law of MCH’s founder. Suki Sushi’s offer was at SG$0.111 per share, which was almost double the closing price. Should current MCH shareholders accept Suki Sushi’s offer and sell their shares, and does Suki Sushi’s offer constitute an investment opportunity for investors not currently holding MCH shares?

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

Samsui Supplies & Services Private Limited provided 1.8 million meals annually to long-term care facilities in Singapore through the company’s flagship project, Samsui Central Kitchen. The company had won accolades for its work, and in April 2018, the director felt that the time was right to expand the project. He wondered, however, how he would illustrate to the organization’s key stakeholders the social impact Samsui was having in the SG$89 million market of providing meals for long-term care facilities. To gain support for scaling up Samsui’s initiatives and maximizing the social impact the company was delivering, the director needed to quantify the impact of the company’s corporate social responsibility initiatives in a clear and simple message to its various stakeholders.

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In 2012, the founders of food wholesale company FoodXervices Inc. Pte. Ltd. identified a gap between food wastage and food insecurity in Singapore. To reduce this gap, they established a charity arm, The Food Bank Singapore Ltd., which operated as a liaison, collecting near-to-expiry, excess, and unwanted food products from food suppliers, retailers, and restaurants for distribution to beneficiary organizations. When the charity was founded, it was set up to be legally independent to ensure clearer accounts and audits and to prevent false allegations of misuse of food donations. In April 2018, the founders were considering integrating these two now-mature entities to take advantage of potential internal and external synergies. They needed to determine the optimal way to integrate the two entities, while considering the needs of all stakeholders.

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

The initial public offering of the Chinese company, Xiaomi Corporation (Xiaomi), would start trading on the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Market (HKEx) on July 9, 2018. The CEO of Xiaomi argued that the company should be priced like an internet firm, since internet services and internet of things formed a major part of the firm’s strategy and profit, and hence should command a higher valuation. Some analysts, however, attached a lower value to Xiaomi, which was viewed as a smart phone manufacturer since this segment contributed the majority of the firm’s revenue. Hence, this case provides an opportunity for students to value a company that operates in diverse business segments: smartphone manufacturer, internet services and internet of things

In 2014, the vice-president of Group Corporate Social Responsibility at Singtel, a Singapore-based provider of telecommunications products and services, was scrutinizing his proposal for the company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) transformation. He wanted to reposition Singtel’s CSR approach to create greater social impact while demonstrating greater benefit to the company beyond promoting its branding and reputation. In doing so, he was mindful that the proposal would require greater financial investment on the part of the company. The proposal would also need to leverage the company’s capabilities and partnerships and address the possibility of dropping its current beneficiaries. His team needed to convince the board of directors and senior management that the potential benefits of the proposed changes would be worth the financial investment and the possibility of reduced brand exposure.

For NUS Business School: (Faculty only)
To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)