For decades, U.S. companies have been outsourcing manufacturing in the belief that it held no competitive advantage. That's been a disaster, maintain Harvard professors Pisano and Shih, because today's low-value manufacturing operations hold the seeds of tomorrow's innovative new products. What those companies have been ceding is the country's industrial commons—that is, the collective operational capabilities that underpin new product and process development in the U.S. industrial sector. As a result, America has lost not only the ability to develop and manufacture high-tech products like televisions, memory chips, and laptops but also the expertise to produce emerging hot products like the Kindle e-reader, high-end servers, solar panels, and the batteries that will power the next generation of automobiles. To rebuild the commons and restore its wealth-generating machine will require government and industry in the U.S. to make two drastic changes: First, the government must change the way it supports basic and applied scientific research to promote the broad collaboration with business and academia needed to tackle society's big problems. Second, corporate management practices and governance structures must be overhauled so they no longer exaggerate the payoffs and discount the dangers of outsourcing production and cutting investments in R&D. Restoring the ability of enterprises to develop and manufacture high-tech products in America is the only way the country can hope to pay down its enormous deficits and raise its citizens' standard of living.
This case examines the competition between ports and port operators in the Pearl River Delta over the last four decades. The cities surrounding the Pearl River estuary are the "workshop of the world," and the development of manufacturing in the region was heavily dependent on efficient container shipping. As China has opened up and drawn more direct trade traffic to Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports, the operators in Hong Kong have had to adapt. More change is afoot, and Hong Kong may have to reinvent itself again.
This case explores one company’s attempt to experiment with a different underlying model for a capitalist enterprise. Brunello Cucinelli, S.p.A. is a leading manufacturer of luxury fashion apparel. Despite being a publicly traded enterprise with annual revenues exceeding 500 million, the company follows a somewhat unique human resource and cultural model. The company’s founder, Brunello Cucinelli, has striven to create an enterprise that follows principles of what he calls “humanistic capitalism”. Human capitalism, according to Cucinelli, means pursuing growth and profitability in a “gracious way.” At the company, humanistic capitalism manifests itself in a very specific set of policies and behavioral norms. Workers are paid wages that exceed 20% of the market norms; the workday (even for senior executive) is limited to the hours of 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM; emails are not to be sent after hours or on weekends; lunch breaks are one and half hours long to allow workers to have lunch at home should they choose. There are also strong cultural norms emphasizing respect and dignity. As part of this culture, employees are expected to keep their workspaces clean; eating at desks is not permitted; water can only be drunk from cups (not bottles); speaking should be done in hushed tones so as not to disturb colleagues. None of these cultural norms, however, are explicitly described in any written documents. The company has adopted this model in both its Solomeo, Italy headquarters and in its North American headquarters located in New York City.
The case allows students to explore the strengths and weakness of this culture and human resource model. A particular focal point of the case concerns the question of whether such a model is scalable and transferable across geographies. Does this model contribute to the company’s success or is ‘humanistic capitalism’ only possible because of the company’s underlying success? Is this model sustainable? The case invites discussion of deeper issues concerning alternative models of modern capitalism.
This case describes the evolution of Kazakhstan's rail connectivity strategy post-collapse of the Soviet Union and its now central role in China's Belt and Road Initiative. This meant shifting from a north-south orientation towards east-west, as well as the development of new border-crossing facilities, special economic zones, and a new middle route that crossed the Caspian Sea. Unlike many other BRI initiatives that involved loans from China, Kazakhstan funded the modernization and upgrade by itself. Now the question was how soon demand would grow to fill the waiting capacity, as other bottlenecks on the Trans-Eurasian land route connecting China with Europe were beyond the country's control.
