Publication database

On Thursday January 27, 2011, hundreds of thousands of protesters in Egypt were vociferously demanding an end to the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak, and to the state of emergency he had let prevail, and nurtured during that tenure. The protest movement was expected to gather even greater momentum following the afternoon prayers the next day, a Friday. The communication and connectivity through social media had acted as a key catalyst in enabling the protesters to coordinate their actions. President Mubarak’s government decided to strike hard at the lifeline of this virtual medium, by exploiting some of the rights that the state of emergency had accorded them. That afternoon, the government ordered the three main voice and data communications providers in Egypt – Vodafone, Mobinil, and Etisalat – to suspend services in selected areas. Among these areas was Tahrir Square (“Freedom/Martyrs’ Square”) in Cairo, the biggest nucleus where protesters had assembled. Later, the government would also instruct these communications providers to broadcast propaganda text messages to all their subscribers, imploring them to be on the side of the Egyptian Army, which the government said was the true protector of Egypt. When Hatem Dowidar, CEO of Vodafone Egypt, heard about the government’s order, he was about to take a crucial decision. He knew that the situation in Egypt was being observed closely from all over the world. Dowidar also realized that the course of action he opted for would have consequences not just for Vodafone Egypt, but also for the parent Vodafone Group. He contemplated the possible consequences, well aware that any decision he took would invariably evoke strong reactions.

The case offers the opportunity to discuss some implications of national crises on multi-national corporations (MNCs), especially implications for business, society, and ethics. Given the fairly well-known historical context of the case, as well as, the non-technical nature of the underlying issue, the case can be used for a broad range of audiences. We have already successfully used the case in MBA settings, in executive education courses, and in workshops that were open to the general public.

The case deals with the quest for boundaries of corporates’ social and environmental responsibility. It poses the question where the responsibility of a company might start or end in a given context and once the company has been able to assess the extent to which it holds itself responsible, what action it ought to take in this regard. In the case of Axel Springer the question is focused on the aspect how much responsibility the company might have for its supply chain: how far and how deep down the supply chain does or should responsibility of a corporation reach? On what facts does this responsibility depend? The publishing house Axel Springer AG serves as good example as it wonders about the scope of their responsibility: After making the strategic decision to move aggressively into the field of digital news and media, the company wonders about their responsibility for digital devices, in particular with respect to conflict minerals that are extracted for the production and use of such electronic devices under highly problematic conditions.

The case draws attention to a rather ambiguous, quite complex, and intertwined sustainability issue. It requires students to think laterally about anticipated and potential risks, about scopes and the extent of responsibility. The case can be well-introduced at a later and more advanced stage of the term as it deals with the concerns of an only indirectly involved media and publishing house that can either neglect or take up the challenge of dealing with conflict minerals. Students preferably know concepts of risk management and corporate responsibility or are acquainted with cases focusing on formulating, implementing, or articulating corporate responsibility before dealing with the question of at what stage and with what tier of the supply chain could or should corporate responsibility end.

This paper analyzes the effect of the removal of government guarantees on bank risk taking. We exploit the removal of guarantees for German Landesbanken which results in lower credit ratings, higher funding costs, and a loss in franchise value. This removal was announced in 2001, but Landesbanken were allowed to issue guaranteed bonds until 2005. We find that Landesbanken lend to riskier borrowers after 2001. This effect is most pronounced for Landesbanken with the highest expected decrease in franchise value. Landesbanken also significantly increased their off-balance sheet exposure to the global ABCP market. Our results provide implications for the debate on how to remove guarantees.

 

View all ESMT Working Papers in the ESMT Working Paper Series here. ESMT Working Papers are also available via SSRN, RePEc, EconStor, and the German National Library (DNB).

The ESMT innovation index 2012 – Electricity supply industry measures innovation activities of 16 major European utilities. In addition to expenses on research and development (R&D), patents and research areas, it also takes indicators for process innovation into account, in particular the utilities’ performance regarding productivity and sustainability.