critically evaluating Danone using key frameworks of international business.

critically evaluating Danone using key frameworks of international business.

Order Description

This assignment requires you to write a 1,750 word original essay answering the following
question/s:

Critically evaluate the Danone case study using key frameworks of international business.

The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be able to:
? Identify and employ appropriate strategic frameworks to evaluate the structures of global
trade and international business.

? Critically evaluate the impact of socio-economic, political and legal environments on
international business.

? Explain and assess the operational strategies used in international business and the
importance of these strategies in global business development.

? Analyse the differences between domestic and global business operations.
In the essay you should use the theories and frameworks of international business as analytic lenses
to explain Danone’s international strategy.

Your essay could draw on a range of the frameworks that you have studied as part of this module.
However, the nature of the case means that you are likely to focus your answer on a discussion of
strategies for foreign market entry, and international strategic alliances. You may also want to
bring in some of the issues you will have encountered in the lecture and seminar on international
strategy.

Copyright Notice
Staff and students of Coventry University are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract
and the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a
CLA license which allows you to:
• Access and download a copy;
• Print out a copy.
This Digital Copy should not be downloaded or printed by anyone other than a student
enrolled on the named course or the course tutor(s).
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms
of this Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such
copies after the end of the course, but strictly for your own personal use.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be
destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by Coventry University.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including
by e-mail) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work
and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, this distortion, mutilation or other
modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to
the honour or reputation of the author.
Course of Study:
Name of Designated Person authorising scanning:
Title: Closing Case – Look Before You Leap
Chapter Author: Griffin, Ricky, W. & Pustay, Michael,W.
From: International Business, 7th edition
Name of Author:
Name of Publisher: Pearson
Name of Visual Creator (as appropriate):
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP
Group Danone SA, the Paris-based marketer of yogurt, nonalcoholic
beverages, and baby foods, has long been a savvy international
competitor. Employing 101,000 persons, its sales in
2010 totaled €17 billion, 45 percent of which are outside its
home base of Western Europe. It is the world’s largest seller of
fresh dairy products, and the second largest vendor of bottled
water and infant nutrition products. Like many other MNCs,
Danone believes emerging markets-which currently produce
one-third of its sales-offer it significant opportunities for
growth. Group Danone has adopted a strategy of allying with
local companies to penetrate promising emerging markets.
Danone contributes its financial clout, manufacturing expertise,
and sophisticated marketing skills to these joint ventures,
while the local partner contributes its knowledge of the host
country’s legal system, political process, distribution channels,
and the consumption habits of local consumers.
In Bangladesh, for example, Danone created a joint venture
with the Grameen Group (see page 167 for a fuller discussion
of Grameen). Danone viewed Bangladesh’s 159 million
people as an untapped market. Grameen had two different, but
complementary goals. It wished to improve nutrition in that
country through the provision of healthier foods. It also wanted
to reduce poverty by creating new markets for Bangladeshi
farmers. To accommodate Grameen’s goals, Danone had to
make some changes in its normal business practices. For example,
its local factory uses as little automation as possible, in
order to maximize job creation, and Dan one scientists tinkered
with product formulas to eliminate the need for sugar, which
would have had to have been imported. Grameen Danone’s
first product is low-priced Shoktidoi yogurt (Bengali for “yogurt
that makes you strong”), which is fortified with vitamins
to overcome nutritional deficiencies in the diet of rural children.
Shoktidoi yogurt is made using milk provided by local
farmers and is sweetened with molasses made from locally
produced dates.
Danone adopted a similar strategy in entering the Chinese
and Indian markets. In the former market, Danone established a
partnership with Zong Qinghou, the entrepreneur who in the
1980s founded the Hangzhou Wahaha group, a drink manufacturer
and owner of one of China’s most famous brand names,
Wahaha. Starting in 1996, Danone and the Wahaha group formed
a series of joint ventures-a total of 38 in all-to produce soft
drinks, sport drinks, tea, and bottled water. In most of these joint
ventures, Danone had a 51 percent ownership share and Wahaha
a 49 percent share.
On paper, these joint ventures were quite successful; most
enjoyed large market shares with significant growth prospects.
For example, Wahaha is the largest bottled-water marketer in
China, with a 39 percent market share. Danone’s joint venture
with Hangzhou Wahaha and another small partner made Danone
the country’s largest soft drink seller, with an 18 percent market
share. Its soft drink sales enjoyed annual growth rates between
10 and 15 percent in the past several years.
Despite the market successes of these companies, the relationship
between Danone and Hangzhou fell apart. Danone
argued that Zong Qinghou, the founder of Hangzhou Wahaha,
set up without its permission 20 parallel soft-drink businesses,
with cumulative sales of $1.46 billion, which operated outside of
the Danone-Hangzhou agreement. Mr. Zong did not deny his
creation of these parallel companies that compete with products
made by the Dan one-Hangzhou joint venture companies. Rather,
he responded he was forced to do so to protect his rights to the
Wahaha brand name and because Danone was not aggressive
enough in building and investing in their joint venture operations.
Zong also argued that Danone has been unfaithful as well,
investing in other Chinese companies-such as the Mengui
dairies and the Hui Yuan company, a manufacturer of fruit
juices-that competed with their joint ventures.
Besides depriving it of its share of the profits, the parallel
operations, in Danone’s view, made it impossible to determine if
the products sold to consumers were legitimate. Accordingly,
Danone sued Mr. Zong and Hangzhou Wahaha in Chinese,
Swedish, and American courts, alleging they had violated the
joint-venture agreement. Danone did not fare well in Chinese
courts. Danone claimed its joint ventures had the right to the
Wahaha name. However, when Hangzhou Wahaha first submitted
its request to transfer the Wahaha brand name to the joint
ventures as was required by their contract, Chinese regulatory
authorities failed to approve it. No reapplication of the request
was ever made. Thus, in December 2007, the Hangzhou
Arbitration Commission ruled that Danone had waited too long
to demand that Wahaha transfer ownership of the Wahaha brand
name to their joint ventures. Subsequent to this ruling, Danone
suspended its lawsuits, hoping that the Chinese government
would recognize the importance of protecting foreign companies’
legal rights and that the Chinese and French governments
would intervene to help settle the disputes. Its hopes for a political
solution came to naught. Accordingly, in 2009, Danone
chose to surrender: It sold its 51 percent share of the joint venture
to Wahaha for €300 million, ending their dispute.
390 PA RT 3 • MANAGING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
Dan one had the opposite problem in India. Dan one and the
Wadia family each owned about one-quarter of their joint
venture in India, Britannia Industries Ltd., with the remainder
publicly held. Danone preferred to be more aggressive in introducing
new products in India. Unfortunately, as part of its
agreement with the Wadia family to market foodstuffs there, its
1995 contract stated it could only introduce new foodstuffs in
the Indian market with the consent of the Wadia family, which
is unwilling to do so. As was the case with its Wahaha joint
ventures in China, in 2009 sold its stake in Britannia Industries
to the Wadia family for $170 million.
Case Questions
1. Grameen Dan one is a joint venture among two companiesthe
nonprofit Grameen Group and the for-profit Group
Danone SA. What are the benefits of this joint venture to
each of these companies? Why did each choose to participate
in the joint venture?
2. From the perspective of each of the partners, are there
any potential pitfalls to joining this joint venture?
3. Now consider Danone’s joint venture in China. What
were the benefits of this joint venture to each of these
companies? Why did each choose to participate in the
joint venture?
4. What could Danone have done to avoid the problems it is
encountering in China and India?
Sources: “Danone’s cheap trick,” Time, August 23, 20 I 0; “Danone exits China
venture after years of legal dispute,” New York Times, October l, 2009;
“Danone to quit joint venture with Wahaha,” Financial Times, September 30,
2009; “Danone ends partnership with Wadia,” Financial Times, April 14, 2009;
“Danone’s Wahaha appeal is dismissed,” Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2008,
p. B2; “Partners fight over Wahaha in China,” Wall Street Journal, July 28,
2008, p. B I; “Arbiter rejects Danone’s claims on China venture,” Wall Street
Journal, July 14, 2008, p. B3; “Danone willing to drop Wahaha suits,” Wall
Street Journal, December 14, 2007 (online); “Trademark ruling favors
Wahaha,” Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2007, p. B5; “Danorie venture
woes now crop up in India: Breakup may loom,” Wall Street Journal, June 22,
2007, p. B3; “Danone’s China strategy is set back,” Wall Street Journal, June
15, 2007, p. AIO; “China venture partner blames feud on Danone,” Wall Street
Journal, June 14, 2007 (online); “Danone seeks ways to fix China joint venture,”
Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2007, p. AS; “Danone China joint-venture
chief quits amid feud,” Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2007, p. A 11; Danone
Social and Economic Report 2006.

366SAM Assignment Brief

Module Team
Ali Ehsan, Andrew Castle
Assignment Information
This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes 1-4 and accounts for 50% of the overall module mark.
This assignment requires you to write a 1,750 word original essay answering the following question/s:
Critically evaluate the Danone case study using key frameworks of international business.
The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be able to:
? Identify and employ appropriate strategic frameworks to evaluate the structures of global trade and international business.
? Critically evaluate the impact of socio-economic, political and legal environments on international business.
? Explain and assess the operational strategies used in international business and the importance of these strategies in global business development.
? Analyse the differences between domestic and global business operations. In the essay you should use the theories and frameworks of international business as analytic lenses to explain Danone’s international strategy.
Your essay could draw on a range of the frameworks that you have studied as part of this module. However, the nature of the case means that you are likely to focus your answer on a discussion of strategies for foreign market entry, and international strategic alliances. You may also want to bring in some of the issues you will have encountered in the lecture and seminar on international strategy.
366SAM Assignment Brief
Page 2 of 6
You will find a number of questions at the end of the case study. You are not required to answer these questions directly in your essay. However, you are likely to find that they are a useful guide to areas that your work should focus on.
You are encouraged to use diagrams to explain frameworks if you feel that this is appropriate. However, please ensure that all diagrams are clearly labelled and explained, and that a reference is provided where a diagram is taken from a secondary source. It is extremely important that your work is fully and correctly referenced in accordance with the Coventry University Harvard Referencing Guide.
Criteria for Assessment
This table details the weightings of the five criteria by which your work will be assessed.
Criteria
Proportion of overall module mark
1. Content (and Learning Outcomes)
25%
2. Knowledge and understanding/application of theory
50%
3. Evidence of reading, use of resources and research
15%
4. Accurate citations and referencing
5%
5. Presentation, grammar and spelling
5%
Total
100%
Please refer to the Marking Scheme below for information on how work is assessed and graded.
How to submit your assessment
The essay must be submitted via Turnitin by 23.55 on 26 March 2015. No paper copies are required. You can access the Turnitin link through the module web.
? Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Should you submit work on time but fail the assignment, you will be offered a resit opportunity but the resit mark will be capped at 40%.
? All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero. Please note that a non-submission is not the same as a failed submission; a failed submission counts as an attempt whereas an absent mark does not necessarily allow you to resit the coursework.
? Short deferrals (extensions) of up to three calendar weeks can only be given for genuine “force majeure” and medical reasons, not for bad planning of your time. Please note that theft, loss, or failure to keep a back-up file, are not valid reasons. The short deferral must be applied for on or before the submission date. You can apply for a short deferral by submitting an Examination/ Coursework Deferral Application Form. Application Forms along with the supporting evidence should go to the relevant Student Support Office. For a longer delay in submission a student may apply for a long deferral.
? Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
? Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.
GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
Word Count Limit
Your word count includes in text citations but not the final references or appendices. If you are more than 10% over or under the word count limit you may lose marks as a 10% penalty applies.
366SAM Assignment Brief
Page 3 of 6
The contents of your References and Appendices are not normally given a specific mark (though they may contribute to your overall mark, as detailed in the assessment criteria). We therefore recommend that you only use Appendices for supporting material and not for the substantive part of your work.
Plagiarism
As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw.
Turnitin includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. Please familiarise yourself with the CU Harvard Reference Style (on Moodle) and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. Again, if you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing or a member of the course team.
Return of Marked Work
You can expect to have marked work returned to you 2 weeks after the submission date. Marks and feedback will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.
Marking and Assessment Scheme
Mark range
Guidelines
70 – 100%
In order to secure a mark in this range, a candidate must submit an outstanding answer that could hardly be bettered. In addition to the criteria identified below for a mark between 70-85%, an answer scoring a mark of 85-100% would show an excellent level of understanding and critical/analytic skills and originality. For example, such an answer would include new insights into international business which are not drawn from the literature but from the student’s own critical thinking, and which add something to the existing literature.
An essay in this range will demonstrate a strong understanding of theories, concepts and issues relating to international business. There will be evidence of wide-ranging reading from a variety of valid sources (as described and presented in the marking criteria for 60-69%).
The assignment must be written in a clear, well-structured way with a coherent and seamless flow and show evidence of independent,
366SAM Assignment Brief
Page 4 of 6
Mark range
Guidelines
critical thought. It must show extensive relevant reading on the subject and intelligent use of the material to present a well-balanced and well-argued assignment. For example, the student will have considered a range of relevant issues and be able to assess the strength and weaknesses of various approaches/arguments and put forward a confident and articulate view of their own.
60 – 69%
An essay in this mark range will demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements of the assignment and of theories, concepts and issues relating to international business. An assignment in this percentage range will include a balanced discussion of issues central to the question, how these are addressed by different authors or sources and some critical thinking into their relative merits or shortcomings.
The answer will be contain few errors and little, if any, irrelevant material. It will show evidence of reading from a variety of sources (i.e. more than 3 or 4) but not so many sources that the discussion loses focus and becomes unclear or irrelevant. All sources should be of some academic merit (e.g. books, journals, reports, media publications). Unreferenced material from non-credible internet sources MUST be avoided.
All sources must be included and properly referenced in the references. The assignment will be well-organised and clearly written/presented overall.
50 – 59%
The answer will demonstrate some reasonable understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues relating to international business but also some minor errors of fact or understanding.
The assignment will not be based on an extensive range of sources (for example few references are included), or much evidence that they have been read closely or well-understood. For example, the assignment will retell sources rather than analyse them.
The assignment may be quite general in part. Some errors may be present and some irrelevant material may be included.
The essay may not be particularly well-structured, and/or clearly presented and contain some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. A few sentences may be unclear.
40 – 49%
A mark within this percentage range will be given to an essay which:
– shows some limited basic understanding of the subject but is incomplete. For example, if it answers one part of a question but not the rest.
– makes only very general statements
– includes some factual errors or misunderstandings e.g. confusion between different companies or misuse of certain key terms.
– shows limited use of material with limited reading/research on the topic and includes only a very small number of references, not
366SAM Assignment Brief
Page 5 of 6
Mark range
Guidelines
all of which are included in the references
– includes spelling mistakes, is poorly structured with no clear argument and grammar mistakes making it difficult to understand.
– includes some irrelevant material.
35 – 39%
A mark within this percentage range will be given to an assignment which:
– includes only a limited amount of relevant material.
– shows little evidence of reading/research on the topic. For example, the essay includes only very few references, and relies only on material or case studies used during the course.
– shows only a very basic understanding of the subject.
– is poorly presented with bad grammar, some spelling mistakes and an incomplete reference list.
– has a poor structure and does not flow e.g. if there is no conclusion or new facts are introduced in the conclusion rather than introduction or main discussion.
– contains some fundamental errors.
20 – 34%
0 – 19%
A poor fail on this assignment means the assignment submitted:
– is poor and suggests that the student has spent very little time on it e.g. if the answer is considerably under the word requirement and/or presented in note form rather than as a fully written up essay.
– bears little relation to the assignment topic.
– shows a poor understanding of theories, concepts and issues relating to international business and to the learning outcomes detailed in this document.
– contains some or many fundamental errors and misunderstandings of the academic or other material used. For example many of the facts cited are incorrect.
– uses literature or other material which is largely irrelevant or has no academic value
– is poorly structured and poorly presented. For example, sentences may be hard to understand and contain many spelling or grammatical mistakes.
– contains no references.
Work within this mark range shows a complete failure to meet the requirements of the assignment. A mark in this range will be given for an essay which:
– is below 500 words in length.
– bears no link to the question chosen and shows very little or no knowledge or understanding of any of the theories, concepts and issues relating to international business. The answer may be fundamentally wrong or trivial.
366SAM Assignment Brief
Page 6 of 6
Mark range
Guidelines
– contains no references and/or evidence of relevant reading.
– shows little understanding of the requirements of the assignment and only a vague knowledge of the subject area.
– includes numerous fundamental errors in the understanding or presentation of the material discussed. There is a general lack of facts/evidence and what is provided is mostly incorrect and/or irrelevant.
– is poorly structured and poorly presented. Spelling and grammar are poor. Many sentences are incomprehensible.
– the examiners do not feel could be described as a serious attempt by any reasonable standards.

find the cost of your paper