COURSE NUMBER: SMPP 213.10
COURSE TITLE:
COURSE
DESCRIPTION:
2020 K Street, Room # 10
Management of Strategic Issues (CRN: 65133)
Spring 2005
Analyzes issues and opportunities facing modern businesses. A critical focus is
placed on effectively managing the firm’s political, legal, economic and social
stakeholders by containing, shaping or coping with strategic business issues to
add value.
PREREQUISITES:
None.
PROFESSOR:
Dr. Jennifer J. Griffin, Associate Professor
203B Monroe Hall
202.994.2536 phone
202.994.8113 fax
email: jgriffin@gwu.edu
Office hours: Tuesday mornings; by appointment; and by email
OBJECTIVES:
1. Examine the interaction between organizations and their external
environments in developing firm policies and actions on strategic
issues.
2. Develop your awareness of changing legal, social, and political
institutions as they affect the business organization.
3. Develop your skills in analyzing organizational situations,
identifying key issues, determining causes of system behavior,
formulating changes and finding appropriate ways to implement
changes.
4. Develop your capacity to listen and communicate accurately and
precisely both orally and written, in small groups and large.
GRADING:
Individual Paper
Group-Case Discussion
Group-Final Paper
Group-Final Presentation
40%
20%
20%
20%
MATERIALS:
The following articles are required readings and are available for purchase at The University bookstore.
Mahon, J. F. 1989, Corporate Political Strategy, Business in the Contemporary World
Mahon, J. F. & McGowan, R. A. 1998. Modeling Industry Political Dynamics. Business &
Society, 37(4):390-413.
Gerde and White, 2003. Application of the Issue Life Cycle Model, Business & Society, 42(1):
83-114.
Ford Motor Company and the Firestone tyre recall, 2003 by R. Moll, Journal of Public Affairs,
3(3): 200-211.
Narayanan, V. G. and Raman, A. 2004. Aligning Incentives in supply chains. Harvard Business
Review, 82(11): 94-102. (HBR#: R0411F)
Ferdows, K. Lewis, M.A. and Machuca, J.A.D. 2004. Rapid-fire fulfillment. Harvard Business
Review, 82(11): 104-110. (HBR#: R0411G)
Yaziji, M. 2004. Turning Gadflies into Allies, Harvard Business Review, 82(2): 110-115.
(HBR#: R0402J)
Friedman, M. 1970. Social responsibility of business.
September 13: 33, 122-26.
The New York Times Magazine.
Martin, R. L. 2002. The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on corporate responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 80(3): 69-75. (HBR#: R0203E)
Paige, L. S. 1994. Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business School, MarchApril. (HBR#: 94207)
Donaldson, Thomas. 1996. Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business
Review. September-October: 4-12. (HBR#: 96502)
Freeman and Gilbert, 1987. The Problem of Relativism When in Rome…., Chapter 2.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.
Harvard Business Review, Dec., pp. 56-68; (HBR-2061-13. or R0212D?)
Harvard Business School Cases:
The Coca-Cola Company (A): The Rise and Fall of M. Douglas Ivester (HBS#: 9-800-355)
Levi Strauss & Co. in China (A) (HBS#: 9-395-127)
Chiquita Banana (HBS#: 9-797-015)
Weaver’s Cove
Harborco.
2
I.
DATE
Jan. 18
Introduction
SESSION
TOPICS and ASSIGNMENTS
1
A. Current Debates on Business and its Stakeholders
READINGS:
The Economist, 2000. Doing well by doing good. (handout)
McKinsey Quarterly, 2002. Controversy Inc. (Blackboard)
Harsanyi, F. 2004. Values-based Leadership. Remarks at the
Academy of Management. (Blackboard)
Additional Readings:
Schneider, M. 2002. Learning to put ethics last. Business Week.
March 11. Available on-line:
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2002/bs200
2038_0311.htm
CASES:
The Hunger Site Decision (in-class handout; Blackboard)
Business dilemmas written by students for students (in-class
handout; Blackboard)
Jan. 25
2
B. Strategic and Tactical Issues Management; Role of stakeholders
READINGS:
Building a Strategically Relevant Global Issues Management
Program, M. Palese DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Blackboard)
‘Where are the Business Patriots? Washington Post, 2004.
(blackboard)
M. E. Porter & M.R. Kramer. 2002. The competitive advantage
of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, Dec., pp.
56-68; HBR-2061-13
Additional Readings:
Clarkson, 1998. The Corporation and its Stakeholders: Classic
and Contemporary Readings, University of Toronto Press.
Wartick, S. and Mahon, J. F. 1994, Issues Management,
Business & Society.
CASE:
The Coca-Cola Company (A): The Rise and Fall of M. Douglas
Ivester (HBS#: 9-800-355)
3
February 1
3
C. Prioritizing Strategic Issues; Issue Life Cycle
READINGS:
Mahon, J. F. 1989, Corporate Political Strategy, Business in the
Contemporary World
Mahon & McGowan, 1998. Modeling Industry Political
Dynamics. Business & Society, 37(4):390-413.
Gerde and White, 2003. Application of the Issue Life Cycle
Model, Business & Society, 42(1): 83-114. (Blackboard)
Additional Readings:
Hatten, M. L. 1982. Strategic Management in Not-For-Profit
Organizations. Strategic Management Journal. 3:89-104.
Stone, M. M. & Brush, C. G. 1996. Planning in ambiguous
contexts: The dilemma of meeting needs for commitment and
demands of legitimacy. Strategic Management Journal.
Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L. and Sarat, A. 1980. The
emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming,
claiming… Law & Society Review, 15 (3-4)
CASE: Ford Motor Company and the Firestone tyre recall, 2003 by R.
Moll, Journal of Public Affairs, 3(3): 200-211.
Feb. 8
II.
Managing the ‘Business of Business’ Issues
4
A. ‘Sticky’ Supply Chain Management Issues; Managerial decisionmaking in global organizations
READINGS:
Narayanan, V. G. and Raman, A. 2004. Aligning Incentives in
supply chains. Harvard Business Review, 82(11): 94-102.
(HBR#: R0411F)
Ferdows, K. Lewis, M.A. and Machuca, J.A.D. 2004. Rapid-fire
fulfillment. Harvard Business Review, 82(11): 104-110.
(HBR#: R0411G)
Yaziji, M. 2004. Turning Gadflies into Allies, Harvard
Business Review, 82(2): 110-115. (HBR#: R0402J)
Additional Readings:
Baron, David P. 2004. Business and its Environment, 4th
Edition; Chapters 18, 21 and 22
Stone, M. M., Hager, M. A., and Griffin, J. J. 2001.
Organizational characteristics and funding environments: A
4
study of a population of United Way-affiliated nonprofits.
Public Administration Review, 61(3): 276-289.
CASE: Chiquita Bananas (HBS#: 9-797015)
ASSIGNMENT: Group Project Proposal DUE, post on BlackBoard by February 10
Feb. 15
5
B. Managing Strategic Issues: The Big Picture
GUEST SPEAKERS:
Teresa Yancy Crane, President, Issue Management Council
www.issuemanagementcouncil.org
Eric F. Reed, Manager, Verizon, Inc.
Dr. John F. Mahon, University of Maine
Feb. 22
6
C. Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance
READINGS:
Friedman, M. 1970. Social responsibility of business. The New
York Times Magazine. September 13: 33, 122-26.
Martin, R. L. 2002. The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on
corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 80(3): 6975. (HBR#: R0203E)
‘CSR: A survey of global companies’ Ernst & Young Report,
2002. (Blackboard)
Additional Readings:
Griffin, J. J. & Mahon, J. F. 1997. The corporate social
performance and corporate financial performance debate:
Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business &
Society, 36(1): 5-31.
Margolis, J. D. and Walsh, J. P. 2001. People and Profits? The search for a
link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CASES:
Exxon Mobil Report on Corporate Citizenship (handout)
British American Tobacco Company (BAT) 2002 Social Report
(www.bat.com)
The Gap (www.gap.com)
March 1
7
D. International Supply Chain Issues; Reputation
CASE: Levi Strauss & Co. in China (A) (HBS#: 9-395-127)
GUEST SPEAKER:
Mr. James Toccacelli, Senior VP, Policy and Communications
EDS Canada, Ontario (2000- 2005)
formerly, Levis Strauss Far East Communications Director based
in Singapore (1991-1999)
5
READINGS:
Michael E. Porter on CSR, 2003. ICCSR newsletter
(Blackboard)
McKinsey Quarterly, Germany and France: Confronting the
costs of social policies, 2003
KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability
Reporting 2002 (www.wimm.nl/publicatiesUK/publicationLijst.asp)
March 8
8
Additional Readings:
International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility (ICCSR)
(www.iccsr.org)
E. Discussion on Individual Papers
ASSIGNMENT: Individual Paper Due in mailbox or BlackBoard
III.
Special Topics
March 15
SPRING BREAK! No Class
March 22
9
A. Local Issues Management
CASE: Weavers Cove Energy v. Fall River, MA
Town Council Meeting (Blackboard)
March 29
10
B. International Comparisons: Regulating Trust, Corporate Governance and
Corporate Citizenship
READINGS:
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
(www.pcaobus.org/rules/Sarbanes_Oxley_ Act_of_2002.pdf)
The U.N. Global Compact (www.unglobalcompact.org)
ISO working document on CSR
‘Corporate Governance’ Center for Political Accountability
(Blackboard)
GUEST SPEAKER:
Mr. John Richardson, co-founder, Center for Political Accountability
Mr. Bruce Freed, co-founder, Center for Political Accountability
Additional Readings:
Waddock, S. A. 2002. Leading Corporate Citizens: Meeting the
Business in Society Challenge. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
6
Andriof, J. and McIntosh, M. (eds.) 2001. Perspectives on Corporate
Citizenship: Context, Content, and Processes. Sheffield, UK:
Greenleaf Publishing.
April 5
11
C. Negotiations: Interests and Interest Groups
CASE:
April 12
12
Harborco
D. Values based decision making: Corporate Governance/Rankings; Ethics
READINGS:
Paige, L. S. 1994. Managing for Organizational Integrity.
Harvard Business School, March-April. (HBR#: 94207)
Donaldson, Thomas. 1996. Values in tension: Ethics away
from home. Harvard Business Review. September-October: 412. (HBR#: 96502)
Freeman and Gilbert, 1987. The Problem of Relativism When in
Rome…., Chapter 2.
Additional Readings:
Lockheed Code of Ethics (Blackboard)
Baron, David P. 2004. Business and its Environment, 4th
Edition; Chapters 21 and 22
Course Overview
IV.
Summary
April 19
13
Group Presentations
All Group Papers due
April 26
14
Group Presentations
7
INDIVIDUAL PAPER—40%
Choose ONE of the following FIVE options. Please, no late papers.
1. Submit an individual paper that would qualify for the $5000 reward for the Best Student MBA Paper
on Corporate Citizenship (www.bc.edu/centers/ccc/; search for ‘Best student MBA paper’).
2. Submit an individual case study that would qualify for the annual Arthur W. Page Society, Case Study
Competition (www.awpagesociety.com).
3. Submit an individual paper that would qualify for the $2500 Moskowitz Prize for an outstanding
paper on socially responsible investing. Google ‘Moskowitz Prize’ or email Lloyd Kurtz at
lklyk@pacbell.net.
4. Submit a paper for The Johnson Award on Ethics and Accountability in the nonprofit, public and
international sectors (www.ethics.pitt.edu or email Tacie Yorke, program administrator at
yorke@gspia.pitt.edu).
5. Identify a strategic issue and prepare an analysis of the issue, the interest groups concerned about the
issue, and the media treatment of that issue. Summarize each of these three parts and attach ALL
supporting materials in a separate binder. The project has three parts.
A. Substantive Issue Analysis
Present a substantive analysis of the issue you have chosen. I expect a critical, well researched,
well written analysis. Your research should include academic materials that address the issue, rather than
relying entirely on media or secondary sources. Identify the problem that the issue concerns, and assess
its magnitude and significance. Be critical; many issues are about things that aren’t really significant
problems. Identify possible ways to address the problem, whether formal policy actions (governance
policy, trade group, individual firm action, legislation, regulation, etc) have been proposed to address it,
the current status of any such proposals. Include an assessment of the pros and cons of each approach.
Create and substantiate the life cycle of your issue (and other issues that may have preceded this issue).
Deliverables:
1) A 10 to 20 page memorandum containing the analysis. Use footnotes to identify your
sources.
2) Attach a bibliography, at least one full page, including enough information to find a
copy of each article you consulted. If it doesn’t fill a page, you didn’t do enough
research. Also attach the primary web page addressing the issue from any “think tanks”
you located (American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Heritage, Progressive Policy Institute, etc.).
Grading Criteria: Analytic excellence; breadth and depth of research; clear, well-written prose.
B. Interest Group Analysis
Examine the different groups that the problem affects, and the different groups that would be
affected by possible solutions. For each group, describe its members, its primary sources of funding, the
principle techniques it uses to influence public policy on your issue, its stake in the issue, and its preferred
solution to the problem. Use annual reports, third party reports, the IRRC database, the WRDS database,
and other sources to get relevant (qualitative AND quantitative) information on accountability,
governance, social and financial impact of the issues and the affected stakeholders.
Deliverables:
1) A 3 to 5 page memorandum summarizing what you’ve learned, including which
8
groups are most important to the eventual outcome and why.
2) Attach approximately one page on each group describing your findings for that group
particularly. Use footnotes to identify your sources. Also attach the primary web page
for each group that discusses your issue, if they have one.
Grading Criteria: Comprehensiveness of your research; clear, well-written prose. For this portion of the
project, the attachments are more important to your grade than the summary
memo.
C. Media Analysis
Examine how the media are covering the issue. For those who rely on the media for information,
what picture of the issue will they likely receive? Pay attention to different media segments – e.g.,
broadcast media, national magazines like Time and Newsweek, the trade press. How much coverage are
they giving to the issue, and from what point of view? Try to be quantitative here, if possible. For
example, you might consider how many articles on the issue show up in Lexis/Nexis in the last six
months. Also, consider the internet as a media source. What will be the most prominent information
presented to a casually interested consumer who goes on line to research the issue? For example, will the
first page of Google results present a balanced picture of the issue, or will it reflect a particular point of
view?
Deliverables:
1) A 5 to 7 page memorandum summarizing media coverage. Address, in particular, the
sources the media are relying on for information, the extent of coverage, and any slant or
direction of the coverage you have identified.
2) Where do you think the issue will go from here? Project the issue’s trajectory and
likely scenarios for two specific organizations and viable media outlets. Make a
recommendation to management
2) Attach four to six examples of coverage from prominent media likely to reach the
public at large.
D. Format
Please give me your materials in two separate documents. One document will include only your
written memoranda. It should include a blank page at the end for my comments. This document will be
returned, probably after spring break. The other document will include the attachments, appropriately
organized. They will be read, reviewed, and consulted, but they will not be returned.
E. Schedule and Strategies
Focus on a current issue. If the issue is more than one year old, you must obtain approval for the
topic. The issue can be local, national or cross-national. The organizations can be from the public,
private or non-profit sectors. The individual paper and all attachments are due March 8th.
As to strategies, pick a topic you are interested in. It should not be too narrow, but it needs to
have a fairly clearly defined problem for the project to be successful. Pollution or environmental
protection is too broad, but renewal of the Endangered Species Act might work. Start by looking at the
popular press for information. You’re going to have to do it anyway, and it will give you a feel for some
of the major issues and players, and some ideas for places to look for more information. But if you end
with the popular press, your analysis will reflect all its biases and limitations, and won’t be very good.
Issues and organizations directly related to your group paper and presentation (the public hearing)
are allowed and encouraged. I expect a well researched, well supported argument with appropriate
citations.
9
IN-CLASS GROUP CASE DISCUSSION—20%
As a team, you will lead the discussion for one case. You choose the case on a first come, first served
basis. As a team, you will be responsible for briefly summarizing the case for your colleagues and
leading the discussion. Come prepared with key questions for the class to enhance our conversation
regarding recommendations for 'what is the important issue(s)?' and ‘what, specifically, can the
organization do?’. Focus 70% of your presentation time on discussion and 30% of your presentation time
on summarizing the case. Your colleagues in class have already read the case so highlight the key details
and move on to the interesting questions raised by the case.
The discussion should be pointed, lively and analytical. Do additional research, if desired. Assign roles
for different class members, if desired. Do whatever is needed to structure the discussion to maximize
class participation. You have a maximum of 30 minutes for discussion. Each team member will be
required to speak for a portion of the presentation. If you plan to use PowerPoint or overheads, be sure to
plan accordingly to encourage class involvement. Contact me EARLY! for your A/V needs. During one
session—social analysis reports on Feb. 22nd—multiple groups will present their summaries back to back
to back to enhance class discussion. Then, we will have a larger group discussion. See BlackBoard for
further directions on this day.
Group evaluations are due on the day of the group case discussion. NOTE: You may sign up for an inclass group case discussion AND write up an individual memo for the same organization/issue—but
remember each assignment has a different purpose and a different audience.
FINAL GROUP PAPER and PRESENTATION (20% each)
In the news this year, numerous sectors/industries are being closely examined for their financial,
accounting, social and governance activities. Each organization within these industries, whether directly
named or not, is likely to be affected by the intended and unintended consequences of these very public
investigations. Costs to individual firms, industries, and/or consumers are likely to be in the millions of
dollars.
Closely examine four organizations within one of the following sectors for relevant issues, responses, and
issues management capabilities. Conduct an Issue Audit. Focus on accountability, governance, social
and competitive (financial) issues—with impacts domestically and internationally. Assess the
vulnerability of four different organizations, specifically, and the industry, writ large vis a vis these four
issues. How do the organization’s define, address, and respond to these issue areas? Create sound
persuasive strategies for each organization. Is an industry-wide position likely to emerge? Why or why
not?
Again, choose one of the following sectors and evaluate any four organizations. The minimum
requirements are: at least one international organization and at least one organization that is significantly
affected (survival, indictment, competitive advantage, comparative advantage) by one of these issue areas.
Create recommendations for each organization with an implementation schema for what each
organizations can and will likely do.
Use both qualitative and quantitative analyses to aid in your analysis and recommendations. Use
whatever resources are needed. There are many think tanks, research centers, lobbyists, and institutes in
Washington, DC. Be sure to draw on your stakeholder networks and reference all material used. Use
annual reports, public reports, IRRC database, WRDS database, trade association information, and
primary data collection sources. Compare and contrast the industry and specific organization’s relative
rankings via Fortune reputation study, the Financial Times, the FTSE 1000, the Business Ethics rankings,
the Reputation Quotient, the Reputation Index, the Governance Metrics International (GMI), the Global
Reporting Index (GRI), etc. It is critical that you perform quantitative analyses to show the impact on the
industry, specific organizations and the stakeholder network.
10
To do this assignment, you must include:
1. Synopsis of the relevant accountability, governance, social and competitive issues in this
industry and four each of your four organizations (e.g., issue life cycle, competitive
positioning)
2. assess each organizations current financial (market) strategy (e.g., resources, commitment)
3. assess each organizations current responses to the four issue area (e.g., legacy, expectations,
rankings)
4. recommend future trajectories for specific organizations including
a. naming, blaming, framing of issues
b. resource commitments
c. level of visible activity—individual and collective
d. cascading arenas of resolution—especially identifying conflicted stakeholders
5. discuss discrepancies within the sector
Issue #1: Pharmaceutical Industry—Vioxx fallout
Issue #2: Financial Services Industry—shareholder resolutions
Issue #3: Beer Industry—drinking responsibly
Please choose your own groups and organizations/industry. A group consists of two or more
individuals—no more than five people to one group. Your job is to represent one industry at a public
hearing. Assess the nature of competition, current strategies for each of the four organizations, and create
future recommendations.
GROUP PROJECT PROPOSAL: On February 8, after we talk in-class about the group
paper/presentation in more detail, your team will write a one-page, NON-GRADED group project
proposal identifying pertinent background on your sector (i.e., organization names, relevant website(s),
team members). Post your group project proposal on BlackBoard--so the entire class can read about your
organizations/sector choices.
GROUP PAPER: All group papers are due at the beginning of class when we have our presentations in
our public hearing(s). This is no limit to the page length of the group paper. Typically, they range from
15-30 pages long with appendices as necessary. Use the models discussed in class in your paper. The
models provide analytic foundations to create credible analyses and viable recommendations.
GROUP PRESENTATION: The public hearing (group presentations) is an oral presentation on your
recommendations to public stakeholders (e.g., media, investors, competitors). Your talk will be 20-30
minutes. I’ll pass on more details once I know the industries and organizations you have decided upon.
Please remember that a public hearing includes a question and answer period (Q&A) wherein you can
question, and be questioned by, representatives of any organization/stakeholder. As a group, you decide
on the division of work for the group paper/presentation. Every group member does NOT have to present
during the public hearing—you decide how best to utilize the group’s resources. Group evaluations will
be due at the time of your group presentations.
11
Case Discussion Sign-Up
SMPP 213 Management of Strategic Issues
Professor Griffin
Jan. 25 Coca-Cola & Douglas Ivester team:__________________________
Feb. 1 Ford/Firestone tyre recall
team: _____________________________
Feb. 8 Chiquita Bananas
team: _______________________________
Feb. 22
Exxon Mobil
team: _______________________________
British American Tobacco team: _______________________________
The Gap
team: _______________________________
March 1 Levi Strauss & Co. in China team: ____________________________
12
GROUP/TEAM EVALUATION FORM
George Washington University
Professor Griffin, SMPP 213 Management of Strategic Issues
Time of class meeting: ____________________________
Date: ________________
Case Name: ____________________________
A portion of each member’s grade will be based on individual contribution to the discussant
paper and presentation. This evaluation is confidential and will not be released.
Each team member is to complete a separate evaluation form to be turned in to the professor in a
sealed envelope (if desired) at the end of class. Please give each member a numeric score for
their contribution for their combined effort to the paper and presentation. Use the following as a
guide:
95-100 Far exceeding expectations
90-94 Excellent
80-89 Above Average
70-79 Average
60-69 Below Average
0-59 Unacceptable
Numeric Score
Your Name:
Comments:
_____________________________________________
_________
Group Member (name): _____________________________________
Comments:
_________
Group Member (name): _____________________________________
Comments:
_________
Group Member (name): ______________________________________ _________
Comments:
Group Member (name): ______________________________________ _________
Comments:
Feel free to make additional comments on the back.
13
GROUP/TEAM EVALUATION FORM
George Washington University
Professor Griffin, SMPP 213 Management of Strategic Issues
Time of class meeting: ____________________________
Date: ________________
Case Name: ____________________________
A portion of each member’s grade will be based on individual contribution to the discussant
paper and presentation. This evaluation is confidential and will not be released.
Each team member is to complete a separate evaluation form to be turned in to the professor in a
sealed envelope (if desired) at the end of class. Please give each member a numeric score for
their contribution for their combined effort to the paper and presentation. Use the following as a
guide:
95-101 Far exceeding expectations
90-95 Excellent
80-90 Above Average
70-80 Average
60-70 Below Average
0-60 Unacceptable
Numeric Score
Your Name:
Comments:
_____________________________________________
_________
Group Member (name): _____________________________________
Comments:
_________
Group Member (name): _____________________________________
Comments:
_________
Group Member (name): ______________________________________ _________
Comments:
Group Member (name): ______________________________________ _________
Comments:
Feel free to make additional comments on the back.
14
COURSE:
SMPP 213.10 Spring 2005
Name:
Preferred name/Nickname:
ID number:
Phone:
Email:
What Industries and/or strategic issues are you interested in learning about:
_____________
Courses currently taking:
What you expect to learn/take away from this course:
Work Experience:
Hobbies/Activities:
Other Comments:
15