More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | July 2020

  Driving Transformation at the Majid Al Futtaim Group

  Suraj Srinivasan and Esel Çekin

  The case opens with Alain Bejjani, CEO of Majid Al Futtaim (MAF) Holding, anticipating on the Group’s next phase in the multi-year transformation journey and reflecting on the initiatives he implemented to create the Group’s growth-oriented culture. Founded in 1995, MAF Group was a regional conglomerate, operating shopping malls, and retail and leisure establishments across 12 businesses in 15 markets in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The case describes the series of structural changes that Bejjani undertook since he became the CEO in 2015, how he transitioned the Holding company from a passive investor to a strategic architect model, and assumed ownership of the brand, culture, and talent across the entire organization for all its operating companies: MAF Properties, MAF Retail, and MAF Ventures. The case discusses the steps that the Group undertook – creation of the Leadership Institute, a new performance management system, investments in digital technology and analytics capabilities, and the launch of the School of Great Moments to instill a focus on customer experience. By November 2019, Bejjani recognized that the organization had evolved considerably in the past five years. He wondered about the next steps in scaling and ability to execute strategy. How much more could he push the organization to continue to change?

  Keywords: Transformation; Retail Industry; United Arab Emirates; Middle East; Dubai;

  Citation:

  Srinivasan, Suraj, and Esel Çekin. "Driving Transformation at the Majid Al Futtaim Group." Harvard Business School Case 121-002, July 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | February 2020 (Revised June 2020)

  Shaping the Governance Debate at ISS

  Suraj Srinivasan, Jonah S. Goldberg and Calvin O. Liou

  ISS is the world’s largest provider of corporate governance research, data, analytics, and voting services. The case uses the effort of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to impose an array of new regulations that would severely restrict the functioning of this company to help readers understand the role of proxy advisors and institutional investors in corporate governance. As ISS rose to prominence throughout the early 21st century, it became highly influential in enabling investors increase their ability to influence companies, managers, and board of directors. ISS had therefore become a lightning rod for controversy, and its detractors in corporate America had been seeking regulation to rein it in for years. The case walks readers through the history of this debate, the concerns of each stakeholder, and how they intersected with ISS’s approach to providing proxy advisory services. It describes in detail how ISS developed its shareholder voting policies, determined its vote recommendations for its clients, and executed their votes come proxy season. It also provides some detail about the outlook for ISS’s business in light of recent trends in capital markets and corporate governance.

  Keywords: proxy advisory services; Corporate Governance; Research; Investment; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Business and Shareholder Relations; Institutional Investing;

  Citation:

  Srinivasan, Suraj, Jonah S. Goldberg, and Calvin O. Liou. "Shaping the Governance Debate at ISS." Harvard Business School Case 120-085, February 2020. (Revised June 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2018 (Revised June 2020)

  Tesla's CEO Compensation Plan

  Krishna G. Palepu and Sarah Mehta

  Tesla’s board of directors proposed an unusual compensation plan for the company’s CEO Elon Musk. The plan payouts were entirely contingent on achieving very ambitious market value, sales, and EBIT targets over the next ten years. If all the targets were achieved, Tesla would be one of the most valuable companies in the world, and Musk would receive the highest compensation of any CEO in U.S. corporate history. If the targets were not achieved, Musk would receive nothing. Proxy advisors (ISS and Glass Lewis) expressed serious reservations about the plan and urged shareholders to vote against it. Should shareholders approve or reject the plan?

  Keywords: CEO compensation; compensation committee; Corporate Governance; Executive Compensation; Governing and Advisory Boards; Business and Shareholder Relations; Auto Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Palepu, Krishna G., and Sarah Mehta. "Tesla's CEO Compensation Plan." Harvard Business School Case 118-085, April 2018. (Revised June 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related