1 -What was the critical catalyst that led Kodak to start taking the Japanese market seriously? Kodak: The Changing Strategies By 2000, Kodak, the company that pioneered the imaging industry byline ting easy-to-use cameras and photographic film, was in deep crisis. With the advent of digital cameras in the mid1990s, Kodak found its sales declining as consumers preferred the new cameras, which did not use films. The growing popularity of digital cameras led to slumpin film sales, which was a major revenue generator for Kodak.
Additionally, the new technology attracted a lot of competition from traditional as well as new players. In order to maintain its lead in the industry, Kodak decided to adopt the new technology and reinvent itself from a camera and film manufacturer to a digital imaging company. The case discusses the evolution of the digital camera market and the shrinking film business. It also highlights the strategies . adopted by Kodak to embrace the new technology to sustain its leader ship position. 2 – From the evidence given in the case do you think Kodak’s charges of un fair trading practices against Fuji are valid?
Support your answer. on December 5, 1997 the US lost its first major trade dispute in the newly formed World Trade Organization(WTO). The high-profile case pitted photographic paper and film giants Kodak and Fuji against one another along with their respective governments, the US and Japan. Kodak claimed that Japan's photographic market &distribution structure, "Deny [end] [Kodak] fair and equitable market opportunities. " Essentially, Kodak was arguing that it could not penetrate the Japanese market beyond a certain level due to structural restraints, government intervention, and back-room policies that favored Fuji.
On the other hand, Fuji & the Japanese government contended that Kodak's poor showing in Japan was due to deficient marketing, management, and investment in the Japanese market. Fuji and the Japanese government refused to enter into negotiations with Kodak because they perceived Kodak's allegations as groundless. This refusal to even discuss Kodak's complaint prompted a May 1995 Kodak filing with the US Trade Representative's office under Section 301, which allows the US touse unilateral action against unfair trading practices. This was viewed to be Kodak's best chance to pry open the Japanese market.
To Kodak's jeopardy, the case was turned over to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body in June of 1996. On December 5,1997 the WTO ruled against Kodak and the US saying it had found no evidence that ,"Japan rigged its domestic markets to favor Fuji Photo Film Co. over Kodak. " Case-2 1 -Which company is truly Multinational ? Why? A Truly Multinational Company The Axel Johnson Institute, the predecessor to Nordic Water, was founded as early as in the beginning of the sixties in Nynashamn. It was an exceptional institute, as it was privately owned. From the beginning the business concept was clean water.
Here they should develop, design, manufacture and deliver machines and equipment for water and wastewater treat men. It appears to have been an excellent business idea. At the Institute they were innovative and soon they obtained patents for a number of products which were exported under the name of Axel Johnson Engineering with great success. The business was doing well and soon we became leaders on the international market. A position which we have managed to keep over the years . The company has developed and changed in many ways but it has always adhered to the original business idea.
Today our name is Nordic Water and our head-office is in Goteborg. Besides we have offices and service divisions in Nynashamn, Maries tad, Clipping and Hannah’s. Our main market is outside Scandinavia. So far we have offices in Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and China . We may not be the biggest but we are world leaders when it comes to water purification 2 -List three differences between Company , Multi National company and Trans Multi National Company ? Difference between a global, transnational,international and multinational company
We tend to read the following terms and think they refer to any company doing business in another country. • Multinational • International • Transnational • International companies Are importers and exporters, they have no investment outside of their home country. • Multinational companies have investment in other countries, but do not have coordinated product offerings in each country. More focused on adapting their products and service to each individual local market. Global companies have invested and are present in many countries. They market their products through the use of the same coordinated image/brand in all markets.
Generally one corporate office that is responsible for global strategy. Emphasis on volume, cost management and efficiency. • Transnational companies are much more complex organizations. They have invested in foreign operations, have a central corporate facility but give decision-making, R&D and marketing powers to each individual foreign market . An drews’s advice is if in doubt about the right term to use, try the generic term “international business” . Multinational Corporation (MNC) is a corporation with extensive ties in international operations in more than one foreign country.
Examples are General Electric, Exxon, WalMart, Mitsubishi, Daimler Chrysler, etc. Transnational Corporation is a MNC that operates worldwide without being identified with a national home base. It is said to operate on a border less basis. • Case-3 1-Explain why MNCs have located R & D centres in developing countries? Theories of the globalisation of innovation assume thatmultinational corporations (MNCs) distribute their innovationactivities hierarchically, with advanced technology beingconfined to the advanced industrials countries, while more routine low-end innovation is decentralized in a few developingcountries.
The emergence of about 40research and development (R&D) centers in Beijing, China, many of which engage in basic and advanced applied research, challenges the above assumption. This article argues that the cheap and abundant highly skilled labour of the latecomer countries is inessential factor in attracting global R&D activities but that this factor is far from being a sufficient condition for the presence there of advanced R&D activities.
Through its analysis of the historical transformation of local institutions and of their co-development with MNCs, this paper identifies four majorknowledge assets that explain why Beijing could attractadvanced R&D activities. First, Beijing has developed a strongentrepreneurial culture that creates highly motivatedengineers who are eager to learn new knowledge from abroad . Second, the experienced Chinese returnees provide a critical bridging role between Western R&D management knowledge and local engineer culture.