IMD business school for management and leadership courses

In July 2017, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched the world’s first Humanitarian Impact Bond. This innovative finance pilot was an experiment by the ICRC to engage the private sector differently and diversify funding – critical given the widening humanitarian aid gap. It was a massive undertaking. The HIB, which had a maximum potential deal size of CHF 26 million, took over four years to plan and multiple stakeholders, including governments, foundations, investors and lawyers, to put together. How did the ICRC pull this off and what possibilities does innovative finance offer the humanitarian and private sectors? Drawing on a series of proprietary interviews with key characters, various internal documents shared by the ICRC, and secondary sources such as news reports, press releases and reports by third-party organizations, this abridged case delves into the ICRC’s motivations for entering innovative finance, why it chose the HIB instrument, what it was, the hurdles and challenges of designing and setting up this complex instrument, and what the ICRC did to get the project off the ground. Participants interested in innovative finance, the humanitarian and/or development sectors, cross-sectoral/industry collaboration, and social innovation will find the case particularly interesting.

The collaboration between ZENITH and Nona Source – the LVMH group’s resale platform for deadstock – resulted in a 2021 product launch that saw ZENITH unveil a series of changeable textile straps as part of its women’s watch collection named DEFY Midnight. It reflected a choice the ZENITH brand made to step outside its traditional territory and endorse eco-conception and innovative collaborations. The challenge for the company was to ensure that the experimentation would not compromise in any way the underlying perception of luxury.

Part B of the Rio Tinto: Everyday Respect multimedia case series reveals the reaction to the report of various stakeholders, as well as how Rio Tinto has acted on the report’s recommendations. The case also shares some of the creative ways Rio Tinto has instilled a culture of respect and enabled it to permeate throughout the organization.

In February 2022 Rio Tinto publicly released a workplace culture report that revealed that sexual harassment, racism and bullying had been occurring at an alarming rate throughout the organization. This was shortly after the Juukan Gorge disaster in Australia: Rio Tinto caused global outrage when its technicians blew up two rock shelters considered sacred by the Aboriginal traditional owners and deemed to be of “the highest archaeological significance in Australia” by scientists. Why did Rio Tinto commission the report, how did it deal with the findings, and how might reckoning with the past shape its future? In Part A of this online multimedia case series, three Rio Tinto executives – James Martin, Chief People Officer, Kellie Parker, Chief Executive, Australia and Isabelle Deschamps, Chief Legal Officer, Governance & Corporate Affairs – and the independent expert commissioned to write the report, Liz Broderick, describe in their own words their experiences, considerations and the debate about whether to release the report.

The (C) case describes the customer’s after-sales experience. The participants need to identify what went wrong again and how the brand might save the customer relationship.

The (B) case describes the same customer’s follow-up experience in the same exclusive retail outlet. The case invites the participants to further identify why the customer experience is going sour and how it could have been better managed.

A short (A) describes the experience of a wealthy Chinese customer going to buy an exclusive watch in the retail outlet of a famous Swiss luxury brand. The customer goes from excitement to disappointment. The case invites the participants to identify the different steps of the pre-sale and in-store customer experience and to suggest how the customer retail experience could have been better managed.

This case is part of a series on Netflix. Case (A) discusses the company’s growth until July 2011. Case (B) tells the story of Netflix’s sharp share price decline after it announced it was splitting the business in two and increasing prices. Case (C) covers the years 2012/13, when Netflix found its way back to success. Seeing that the industry bottleneck was shifting from the channel (who can reach the viewers?) to the content (who owns the movie rights?), Netflix started to produce its own TV shows (e.g., House of Cards, Hemlock Grove). Case (D), set in 2020, focuses on a diverse set of strategic challenges Netflix is facing. First, as indicated already in the (C) case, the cost of content through licensing and production continued to increase. Netflix users had to get used to more frequent cancellations of their favorite show. Second, the “streaming war” between Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video and YoutTube was intensifying on two fronts: competition for subscribers and for content. Third, Netflix was increasing its global presence to accelerate economies of scale by introducing new pricing strategies in foreign countries. Fourth, most movies are watched on mobile phones, where a vertical format is more natural than the traditional horizontal format. It was an open question whether movie producers should adopt this trend set by Instagram and TikTok. Thanks to the growing subscriber base, Netflix’s revenue and profitability were increasing. But is the company well equipped for the intensifying “streaming war”?