The Merger Of Daimler Benz With Chrysler Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2032 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Research paper Did you like this example? Over the recent past, the motor industry has faced a lot of mergers between companies in the bid to get more clients and internationalize their horizons. The well planned mergers have arguably led to relative success while those that might have omitted some vital factor have had to contend with the pain of getting into detrimental losses. Examples of such mergers include the partnership between Ford and Jaguar, GM and Saab, Ford and Mazda or even the BMW and the rover. Only a few companies like Toyota and VW have been able to acquire and maintain their clients through solo efforts (Bruner et. Al., 1998, p. 13). However, the most outspoken and widely renowned automobile story is the hopefully planned, yet ill-fated, merger between Chrysler and Daimler which resulted in great losses by both companies. It is based on their failed merger that this case study is going to highlight various aspects like the strengths, weaknesses, risks, opportunities, challenges and the extent of success of the Chrysler and Daimler project. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Merger Of Daimler Benz With Chrysler Finance Essay" essay for you Create order Even before the 1998 merger, both Daimler and Chrysler had to face surmountable challenges ranging from stiff market competition, diversification of products and services, global recession among many other factors. Nevertheless, through their hardworking leaders and ingenious contribution from various innovative individuals, both companies were able to stay afloat of the murky waters of the automobile industry. By the end of 1997, both companies had already reestablished themselves as dominant forces in automobile dealership with Daimler being in the German frontline while Chrysler having a lions-share of the American market (Milne Reed, May 15, 2007). It is however from the growing competition from other automobile companies, the need to expand markets into international horizons, the need to share the vast potentiality and expertise from both companies that Jrgen Schrempp-the CEO of Daimler- and Robert Eaton-Chryslers CEO-saw the need to form a merger. Bruner et. Al., (1998, p. 17) opines that in such a merger; companies agreed to exchange of stocks which ultimately led to formation of one new superior company. This posed great possibilities for companies for example; it could enhance saving of costs through elimination of redundant mechanisms, improve the quality of products and services based on the uniqueness of technologies, expand territorial conquest for the involved parties, increase employment of people residing in the place where the company is to be incepted among others. So in spite of the high numbers of documented failures; Chrysler and Daimler were greatly determined towards forming a merger and recording good outpu t (p. 17-24). As explicated later, this determination and hope backfired on them as they faced greater challenges that led to the downfall of two of the most revered automobile companies in the whole world. 1 i) To what extent is it fair to say that the merger of Daimler-Benz with Chrysler was a logical realization of the stated strategy of either company? Very little can be shown for the immense positivity and hope that Daimler and Chrysler when their merger began. Apart from a slight increase in the GDP rates in both Germany and the U.S, much of the merger results were considered as one of the most devastating partnerships of all time. Of course there were little positive mobility in terms of development of new products and services. Mackintosh Milne (2005) exemplify this by citing the increased sales and profits between the year 2000 and 2003 that resulted from the 300c saloon. However, cumulatively, the products were not able to give returns as earlier projected by the planners. In fact, there were not even enough returns to cater for the huge amount of money that were pumped into the project (Bruner et. Al., 1998, p. 42-44). Mackintosh Milne (2005) additionally say that in the latter years of the merger, there was a relative increase in employment which greatly boosted the economic status of both Germany and U.S.A. The duo further document that this merger was resulted in the opening up of more trading fronts for vehicles, spare parts as well as other vital automobile accessories which relatively boosted the financial output of the Chrysler-Daimler partnership. 1 ii)To what extent is it fair to say that the merger of Daimler-Benz with Chrysler was a relevant response to any of the principal issues emerging from a SWOT analysis of either company conducted at the end of 1997? In spite of the relatively increased profit margins of both Daimler and Chrysler, both companies were facing surmountable challenges that greatly required the formation of a merger. This is going to be analyzed below based on the SWOT analysis i.e. the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats/Risks. a) Strengths As of 2007, both companies were dominant in their respective states. The formation of a merger would therefore not only increase their domination locally but also open international fronts for more market and sales of their various products and services. The merger also offered a chance to further the strength of the companies in terms of developing new products and services which was very vital for an increase in profit margins. Lastly, both companies were strong in terms of their technical expertise. By merging, both of the companies had the chance to learn from one another, incorporate their unique skills and invent new strategies or systems of operation even as they worked to further the common goal of ensuring the overall growth of the company as a unified entity. b) Weaknesses According to LEX column (1997), merging the companies would mean that new designs that incorporate technology from both Chrysler and Daimler. This was greatly inhibiting since both companies had previously tried redesigning or remodeling new products based on the new technology but ended up failing. The prospects of succeeding this time round were therefore seen as being quite limited (Simonian, 1987). Again, the German market tended to be freer as opposed to the U.S market which was quite rigid in terms of the policies governing sales, marketing and circulation of money. This, therefore, made it difficult for the formation of a unified cash-flow system that was accommodative of both ends. c) Opportunities As stated earlier, this merger would open a vista of opportunities for the expansion of market bases, inception of new products, joining of superior technologies and even creating employment opportunities. d) Threats Mackintosh Milne (2005) say that such a merger would pose threats like the facing out of some unique designs in the name of creating new ones, lack of independence amongst the companies, overcapacity of equipment, development of unstable products and services based on the incorporation of numerous technologies among many others. Similarly, there was the risk of competition amongst the partners in the bid for who gets the lions share of profits or benefits from the company. This would in turn inhibit positive growth of the partners. 3. Do you believe that management was slow to identify, or to respond to, the problems which emerged at Chrysler from 2000 onwards? If so, what do you think was the reason for the delayed reaction? It would be subjective to ultimately vest the problems faced by Chrysler on the management. This is because all the people in the organization had a part to play; and their failure meant that the management would also no be able to ardently perform its job. On the flipside, I still believe that the management had a huge role to play and their laxity in terms of identifying or responding to the withstanding problems hugely affected the outcome of the organization. The reasons for the delayed reaction might have been because of: Firstly, the partnership between Chrysler and Daimler ensured that both parties had a say on the managerial issues. In order for a decision to be passed, both parties had to consult one another. It is only after a consensus was reached that a decision move was able to be made. This process was quite tiresome and involved many bureaucratic steps that hugely devoured the available time thus leading to the laxity. Secondly, different managerial factors played differently in various regions. This means that the problem faced by one Chrysler branch did not necessarily mean that the other was affected. This disparity therefore dragged the pace at which problems were discovered or even rectified by those in the management. Thirdly, some implementation procedures were quite advanced and needed to be first tested on a pilot basis. As a result, the process of implementation was snail-paced since full implementation could only take place once it was tested and proven on a small scale basis. Consequently, a lot of time was consumed in the processes. Finally, some problems were not easily identifiable by the management. For example, if a new vehicle was taken for a test drive, it was upon those who tested it to notify the management of any problems witnessed. Failure to do so by the testers therefore means that; the management does not get to know of the problem and thus not able to solve it. In such cases, the problem might even go unnoticed even to the point of the car being launched and then the blames coming back later to the management who were not necessarily aware of the problem. 4. Do you believe that management was slow to take the decision to sell off a controlling interest in Chrysler? Again, if so, what do you think is the reason for any delay? Here, I believe-and therefore strongly oppose- the argument that the management procrastinated in selling off the controlling interest in Chrysler. Taking into account Simonian (1987) sentiments, the management could not make such an apt decision just because they were facing difficulties; in the previous times, Chrysler faced similar difficulties and through their patience, they were able to come out victoriously. In this case too, their patience was justified. In addition, market conditions are subject to constant changes. And based on the vibrancy in the automobiles industry, it is very vital to give an opportunity for all the vital factors to first play out before making a decision to sell or buy something. It is only when you have reached your irreducible minimum that professionalism dictates you to make a change. This is the same scenario witnessed in the case of Chrysler; the management had to take time first and try all its options before throwing the towel on the battle for success and increase in profits. When making a sale, it is also important not just to look at the prospects of getting rid of a product or service, it is vital that you also factor in the prospects of getting a considerable and worthwhile amount from your sale. Even in the case of selling something at a throw away price-like in the instance of Chrysler-, some modicum amount of positive earnings has to be realized by the seller. In spite of going below their targeted mark, Milne and Reed (2007) cite the sale of shares by Chrysler to Cerberus as a good deal that positively changed the automobile environment in the United States (Simonian, 1997). Yet still, it is important to note that selling of vital company shares can only be done in consultation with the (major) stakeholders of the company. Prior to their approval, the management is as good as silent since its opinion will not really matter. This is exhibited by the deal between Chrysler and Cerberus which was only possible after a go ahead from the shareholders and the investors. Shortly, it is inherent to note that the merger did not live up to the expectation of its founders. A lot of technical know-how, money, expertise and time was put into it but very little was realized. The many cases in courts-some not yet even solved to date-attest of the misdoings of both Chrysler and Daimler in the management of their merger. On a positive note though, several other developing-and developed-countries have learnt from Daimler and Chryslers mistake and have ended up with success in their mergers. So instead of just blanketing the whole issue of merger, it is highly recommended that more research and trials are done into mergers so as to ensure future success to those who would like to use this risky yet rewarding partnership.

Communist Manifesto And Abraham Kuyper s The Problem Of...

The skies are an eternal grey, the sun is hardly seen, and people hurriedly rush to a meaningless job only to stumble back to a home in squalor. The grey of the skies is a perfect match for the people’s spirits. Hope, like the sun, becomes shrouded in a smoky cloud as the jobs provided to these people offer little in wages and even less in purpose. This is the life facing the proletariat, wage-labor social class or working poor. In contrast, the employers of the poor caste live rather lavish lives of wealth and stature. The bourgeois, upper middle-class consisting of business owners, shop owners, landlords, otherwise known as the wealthy employers. It is this contrast of social struggle that produced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Abraham Kuyper’s The Problem of Poverty. Both Marx and Kuyper’s writings focus on the social struggle between the privileged, wealthy, and unprivileged, poor; however, Marx presents the struggle and his solution from an econ omic viewpoint while Kuyper presents the struggle and his solution from a religious viewpoint. Marx begins his presentation with a defining of both socio-economic groups then presents the political movement of Communism as a solution to the contrast. Kuyper, on the other hand, focuses his presentation on the idolization of monetary wealth over the sovereignty of God beginning at the conclusion of the French Revolution. Kuyper’s writing not only presents a religious solution to class struggle, but is also a response of

The British Government Vs the US Government Free Essays

The United States and Britain are two powerful democracies in the world that always tried to uphold the values of democratic system and propagate those values across the globe. In most cases, they share same views and opinions in restoration of peace and democracy in different parts of the world. There are several factors that bring the countries closer. We will write a custom essay sample on The British Government Vs the US Government or any similar topic only for you Order Now The similarity in the political system of both the countries is one of those factors. Their political systems also differ in many aspects. However, still they share almost the same values and principles. The government system of these counties are so strong and convincing that many countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and others have adopted their constitution from these countries. The British Government, a Brief Overview Britain has a parliamentary democratic system with a constitutional monarch. Queen is regarded as head of the state. Unlike other constitutions in the world, the British constitution is made up of a combination of laws and practices that are not legally enforceable. However, they are considered as vital to the functioning of the government. â€Å"The British government system is divided into four parts: the Monarch, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Although Queen is not involved in the day-to-day operation of the government, she is an integral part of all branches of the British government system† (James, 1999: 41). Britain provides a unique example of balance between the monarchy and democracy. Both Queen and the democratic head of the country perform their responsibilities without any conflict. The US Government, an Overview The political system of the United States gives a strong framework for a federal presidential form of democratic government. There is no monarchy in the United States. Unlike some other democracies in the world, the President keeps most powers in his hands. The president is both head of state and head of government. He is also the head of a two-party legislative and electoral system. â€Å"The US government system includes the Executive headed by the President, the legislature and the judiciary. Legislative power is vested in the Congress that has two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature and is comprised of the US Supreme Court and lower courts† (Vile, 1999: 31). The judiciary also has the power and authority to resolve the disputes between the executive and legislature. The British Parliament and the US Congress â€Å"The major difference between the government systems of Britain and the United States is the basis on which they are formed. While Britain has the parliamentary form of government, the United States has the presidential form of government† (Lijphart, 1992: 31). The legislature in Britain is known as the Parliament. It is made up of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen as constitutional monarch. â€Å"The House of Commons has 651 elected representatives who are called the Members of Parliament. They represent local constituencies. The House of Lords is comprised of 1,185 members who are selected on hereditary terms, two archbishops and the 24 most senior bishops† (James, 1999: 45). The center of parliamentary power in Britain is the House of Commons. â€Å"The House of Lords has limited powers in the functioning of the government. Traditionally, it complements the House of Commons and does not indulge in any type of conflict† (James, 1999: 46). The British Parliament uses several procedures to control the executive branch of the government system. When any report is prepared, the House of Commons gets the ultimate power to pass the resolution. If the House rejects any proposal, that becomes tantamount to be a no-confidence against the government. Like the British government system, the US Congress is also bicameral. It is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. â€Å"The House has 435 members who represent the congressional districts. They serve a two-year term. House seats are determined on the basis of population in the respective states. The US Senate has 100 members. Each state sends two senators to the Senate who serve a six-year term. Both Senators and Representatives are elected through direct election† (Vile, 1999: 54). In the British government system, the House of Lords has very limited powers to decide the passage of any bill or proposal. However, this is not the case with the US Senate. â€Å"The Senate’s advice and consent is required to confirm the President’s nominations to high-level positions in the executive and the judiciary† (Vile, 1999: 52). Voting system in the British political system and the US political system is similar. In Britain, general elections are held every five years to choose MPs. Similarly, in the US, the President and the members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. Voting is conducted through a secret ballot and the minimum age requirement to participate in voting is 18 in both countries. Political Parties Political parties in Britain and the United States play a major role in determining the course of the government. The political party system is essential to the smooth functioning of the constitution. Although there are several small parties in Britain, the contest is always between two major political parties, the Conservative Party and the Labor Party. All the general elections have been won by these parties. The smaller parties are mostly represented in local governments. After every general election, the government is formed by the party that gains majority in the House of Commons. The leader of the winning party is appointed as Prime Minister by the Queen. â€Å"The Prime Minister appoints about 100 ministers. Out of them, at least 20 ministers get the rank of cabinet ministers. They take all major policy decisions. Ministers are responsible for government decisions, as they are party to it† (Lijphart, 1992: 46). The opposition party, which gets less number of votes, plays a constructive role to challenge government policies and present an alternative. The policies are always carried out by government departments that are accountable to the respective ministries. However, these departments are staffed by neutral civil servants who have no association with any political party. They perform the executive functions of the government. The political system of Britain and the US is quite similar. Although they function as multi-party system, only two major parties in both countries hold much importance. The United States has two major political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that dominate the political spectrum of the country. â€Å"It is true that the political parties have not been recognized or registered by the law either in Britain or in the United States. However, they are regulated by the constitutions of individual states or counties that organize elections both at local and national level. Despite having multi-party system, both countries have been limited to a bi-party system† (Lijphart, 1992: 48). Decision Making Group In Britain, the decision-making group is comprised of the Prime Minister and his group of ministers. â€Å"The government of the United Kingdom contains a number of ministries. Each of them is led by a senior minister who is supported by some junior ministers† (James, 1999: 61). Any major decision taken by the government first goes through the House of Representatives and then goes to the Queen for her approval. â€Å"In the United States, the decision-making group comprises of the President and the Cabinet appointed by him. The Cabinet includes the Secretary of State, Attorney General and secretaries of other federal executive departments† (Vile, 1999: 60). The US has separate state departments. Each department is headed by a Secretary who directly reports to the President. Once a bill is prepared, it goes through the House of Representatives and the Senate. It becomes law only after both the houses approve it. Judicial System The British judicial system is completely different from the American judicial system. Britain does not have a single judicial system. It has separate judicial systems for the member countries. â€Å"England and Wales have one judicial system while Scotland has its own judiciary. Northern Ireland has another judicial system. The Lord Chancellor, who is the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, appoints judges and magistrates for criminal courts. He plays an active role in the executive, legislature and judiciary† (James, 1999: 71). The US Constitution provides scope for a powerful judiciary. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial authority in the United States. It is regarded as the guardian of the constitution. The judiciary of the US is completely independent of the executive and the legislature. â€Å"The Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President with the consent of the Senate. While the Supreme Court is established by the US Constitution, all other federal courts are created by the Congress† (Vile, 1999: 62). The Supreme Court has the authority to hold both original and appellate jurisdiction. Functions of the Government The British government makes strategies with the help of group of ministers, approval of the House of Commons and the final assent from the Queen. However, it is not possible for the government to implement the policies without the help of the government departments. Government departments and their agencies are instrumental in implementing government policy. They often work with the local authorities, statutory boards and other government-sponsored organizations. The major government departments in Britain include the Ministry of Defense, Department of Social Security, Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Employment. These departments are headed by ministers. However, there are some departments that are headed by permanent officials from Civil Service. â€Å"Many government departments are assisted by advisory councils or committees. These bodies are generally appointed by the respective ministers† (James, 1999: 79). Members from the Civil Service are integral part of the government activities. Their responsibilities range from policy formulation to carrying out the day-to-day duties of public administration. The US government carries out its operations through various departments. â€Å"Although the President and the US congress formulate strategies, the federal executive departments implement these policies in the country. They work closely with the state governments and the local governments. The federal executive departments are headed by the members of the Cabinet† (Lijphart, 1992: 65). The main government departments in the United States are the Department of State, Department of Treasury, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security. Heads of these departments are called as Secretaries. Conclusion The United States and Britain always worked closely to restore peace and democracy in different parts of the world. Sometimes they used force to achieve their objective and received huge criticism for that. However, their dedication towards democracy, world peace and maintaining the constitutional values cannot be undermined. They always turned against the dictatorship and fascism and promoted democratic principles across the globe. The government systems of the United States and Britain are so popular that many governments have adopted them in their own countries. Bibliography James, Simon. British Cabinet Government. London: Routledge, 1999. Lijphart, Arend. Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Vile, M. J. C. Politics in the USA. London: Routledge, 1999. How to cite The British Government Vs the US Government, Papers

Corporate Social Responsiblity A Little More Than Greenwashing

Question: Discuss about theCorporate Social Responsiblityfor a Little More Than Greenwashing. Answer: Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that is dominant in reporting of the business. Every corporation annually prepares a report with the details of its activity and has a policy concerning CSR. It defines a relationship between a corporation that is global, governments of the countries and citizens. The CSR is defined as the duty of making decisions controlling the actions taken which safeguard and upgrade the well-being of the society in all and even keeping with their own interests. (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2008) Companies integrate concern for society and environment into its business operations and on a voluntary basis interact with the stakeholder. CSR is a helping hand for greenwashing the image of the company, saturates channels with constructive image of the companys identification papers covering the negative image. So it is very likely to agree with the statement that, some critics of CSR claim it little more than greenwashing. There are three basic principles for all the CSR activity and these principles are as follow: Sustainability Accountability Transparency Sustainability :this principle focus on the generation of the resources and its use in the future by the society and also it focus on the power which is to be taken in present to safeguard the resources upon the available in the future. Accountability: this principle of CSR recognizes that its action taken affects the external environment and further accepting the responsibility for the effect of such actions. Transparency: this principle aims at ascertaining the reports and analysis of the action and its external effect. The sustainability of the environment is a major issue all around the world these days. The degradation of the environment has gradually increased from the past few decades. Globalization and industrialization has contributed in the environmental degradation significantly. Pollution, emission of greenhouse gas, global warming, depletion of ozone layer etc are some major problems that are being faced due to the effect of globalization and industrialization. (Reinhardt, Stevins, 2016) Greenwashing is a practice that organizations follow to make organization look environmental- friendly than it actually is. Instead of minimizing the effect of the products on the environment the organizations make efforts on marketing the product as green by spending more time and money on them. The go green strategy is being adopted by the companies as a trend these days therefore green marketing and sustainability have become significant. And the organizations use the green marketing as their weapons to with stand the global market. And the misuse of this practice of green marketing by the organizations is to create a false green brand image in the consumers and the investors eye. This is all what is known as Greenwashing. (Aggarwal, Kadyan, 2014). There has been a range of criticism for CSR. There are many companies which pursue the CSR to take advantage of the consumers. They promote their reputation by advertising their CSR efforts. The criticism has five main category or groups: The very firstly, with the help of CSR related activities and the CSR efforts the organizations can build a highly positive brand image which may allow the business to show a positive image with less effort. Secondly, being different from the fact, using media and publicity as a source CSR creates an impression that the organization are related to the CSR activities. Thirdly, the CSR activities engaged in organizations sometimes contradict with their actual tendencies and practices. Fourth, the MNCs and the large organizations influence the society with their active participation in the issues of CSR. Fifth, CSR is only an effective public relations tool and an empty promises. These criticism clearly aims on claiming CSR being a little more than greenwashing. No companies are taking CSR seriously as the organizations are concerned about the social responsibility. So it is very reasonable to say that the employees, managers, owners, and investors of a company are the individuals who have driven the importance of the CSR. The CSR has become very popular all around the world. It is being implemented by the organizations as CSR policies. Many do incorporate it in their organizational structure such as the airline industry focusing on reducing the aircraft noise and emissions. There are many organizations which do not practice the CSR for benefiting the society. The organizational success depends upon the ethically integrated structure of the organization. The CSR activities and the principles of CSR explains the importance of CSR in an organization. Is the CSR a little more than greenwashing.? What is greenwashing and how has it been driven by the organizations. The criticism of CSR explains the darker side of CSR and how has it been used in the organizations to show a positive image of the organization, suppressing the negative one. It describes the principle that the organization should build up a positive contribution to the society. By CSR here we refer to the practice followed by the major companies rather than smaller ones. The go green strategy of the organizations is being followed to make the awareness about the environment friendly products of the organizations but from past few years the organizations are use it just for promoting their brand and do not seriously take steps concerning it. The CSR helps the companies to build an image that is loyal and positive to develop a personal connection with the customers. Greenwashing the companies image also using the media and advertisement as a source to cover the negative image. Competitive advantage is gained using the CSR activities by the companies causing it to be a corporate reaction to public mistrust. The CSR activities work as partnership for public and private and it gives various options where the companies in accordance with the government can regulate and even pool the resources they have, making a strategy for avoiding the regulations. It is important for a country to n develop economically, it may impact the CSR reporting. It is important to analyze the potential positive and negative impact of the political and governance system by the organizations practicing CSR. (Dudovisky, 2012) Reference Reinhardt, L, F, Stavins, N, R, 2016, corporate social responsibility, business strategy, and the environment, vol. 26, no. 2, p.p. 164-181 Springer open, 2016, international journal of corporate social responsibility, viewed on 22nd of December 2016, https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7 Fooks, J, G, Gilmore, B, A, Smith, E, K, Collin, J, Holden, C, Lee, K, 2011, Corporate social responsibility and access to policy elites: an analysis of Tabacoo industry documents, viewed on 21st December 2016, https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001076 Karnani, A, 2010, , the wall street journal, the case against corporate social responsibility, viewed on 22nd December 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890 Ethical consumer, 2007, CSR, viewed on 22nd December 2016, https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/factsvgreenwash/corporatesocialresponsibility.asp Dudovisky, J, 2012, criticism associated with corporate social responsibility(CSR), Viewed ON 22ND December 2016, https://research-methodology.net/criticism-associated-with-corporate-social-responsibility-cs Corporate watch, 2016, whats wrong with the corporate social responsibility? The argument against CSR, viewed on 22nd December 2016, https://corporatewatch.org/content/whats-wrong-corporate-social-responsibility-arguments-against-csr