Error! Filename not specified.
MGMT6005
Managing Organisational
Risk in Global Context

ASSESSMENT GUIDE

Term 3, 2025

ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Assessment Methods Weighting Due Date Learning
Outcomes
Assessment 1: Case Critique

30% Weeks 4, 5, & 7 CLOs 1-6
Assessment 2: Group Presentations
2a) Group Case Presentation (10%)
2b) Group Project Presentation
(20%)

30%



2a) Weeks 4, 5, & 7
2b) Weeks 9 & 10

CLOs 1-6


Assessment 3: Quiz
4 In-lecture Quizzes (5% each)

20% Weeks 3, 5, 7, & 10 CLOs 1-6
Assessment 4: Participation
4a) Class Participation (16%)
4b) Country Report (4%)

20% 4a) Week 1-5, 7, 9, & 10
4b) Week 2


CLOs 1-6

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES (CLOs)

CLO1: Identify the origins, characteristics and means of managing risk
CLO2: Evaluate the role of different interest groups, governance and regulation in addressing
organisational risk
CLO3: Assess the value of theory to explain different approaches to risk
CLO4: Examine problems in specific organisations with regard to particular hazards/risks
CLO5: Consider the ethical, equity and sustainability implications of current and emerging risks
CLO6: Consider risk in a global context
UNSW Business School

3
ASSESSMENTS
ASSESSMENT 1: Case Critique (30%) (Individual assessment)
Description of assessment
This case critique assessment is structured to engage students in the critical examination of
concepts, theories, and frameworks and their practical application to the challenge in global
context.
Approach to the assessment
• Identify the key issues of the case
• Apply relevant concepts, theories, and frameworks from the course to the analysis of the case
questions
• Provide strategic recommendations to resolve the issues, challenges, and/or problems
presented in the case with justifications
• Show structural coherence, precise writing, and consistent reference

Assessment criteria

1. Identification of the key issues of the tutorial case
2. Application of concepts, theories, and frameworks to analyze the tutorial case
3. Problem-solving and recommendation
4. Structure of report, academic writing and referencing

Choice of case

• The choice of case of this individual assignment (i.e., case critique) should be different from the
choice of case of Group Case Presentation
• Please refer to the Appendix for the list of tutorial cases and case questions

Length of case critique

• No more than 1,000 words (excluding reference list)
• Cite all references correctly by providing a reference list that includes all citations

Format of written assignment

• Please use Harvard method for referencing
• For further information, please click on the below links:
• https://www.business.unsw.edu.au/StudentsSite/Documents/Harvardreferenceguide.pdf
Assessment submission instructions
• Submission type: Turnitin
• Due date: 8, 15, or 29 Oct, 5:00pm (The due date depends on your selected case. If your
selected case will be taught in Week 4, please submit your case critique in Moodle on/before 8
Oct, 5:00pm)
UNSW Business School

4
ASSESSMENT 2: Group Presentations (30%)
2a) Group Case Presentation (10%)
Description of assessment
For this assessment, your group will deliver a presentation to analyze the tutorial case chosen
by your group. Please see the appendix for the tutorial cases. This presentation serves as an
opportunity for your group to demonstrate your ability to analyze the organizational risk in
global context and communicate effectively. Presentations will take place in the tutorials.
Approach to the assessment
• Provide a summary outlining the case and major issues reflected in the case
• Critical analysis of the issues by applying the concepts, theories, and frameworks
introduced during the lectures
• Recommend key strategic decisions and possible solutions to resolve issues identified in
the case
• Engage the audience, give concise information, and provide articulated responses

Assessment criteria

1. Identification of the key issues of the tutorial case
2. Application of concepts, theories, and frameworks to analyze the tutorial case
3. Problem-solving and recommendation
4. Structure of presentation, presentation skills, performance in Q&A session

Choice of case

• Each group should submit the choice of one case in or before Week 3
• The approval of the selected case will be on a first-come-first-serve basis

Duration of your presentation

• Prepare a PowerPoint presentation of 30 minutes in duration, addressing the issues,
challenges, and/or problems described in the case
• Address questions during a 10-minute Q&A session
• Presentation week: Weeks 4, 5, & 7 (two groups per week)
Assessment submission instructions
• Submission type: Turnitin
• Submit presentation slide deck only. Use the following format for file name: group leader
name_week_tutor name. (e.g., PeterJason_W04_Christine).
• Only group leader needs to submit the file
• Due date: 8, 15, or 29 Oct, 5:00pm (The due date depends on your selected case. If your
group will present the selected case in Week 4, please submit your presentation slide deck
in Moodle on/before 8 Oct, 5:00pm)
Grading and feedback
• Students are given oral and written feedback following their presentation
UNSW Business School

5
• Students are directed to use the rubrics and the instructions provided to design/prepare
their presentation

2b) Group Project Presentation (20%)
Description of assessment
For this assessment, your group, assuming the role of global strategy analyst, will present a
new foreign direct investment project to the CEO and the board of directors of the
multinational corporation (MNC) (i.e., the class). This presentation serves as an opportunity for
your group to demonstrate your ability to identify a new foreign direct investment opportunity in
a new host country which the MNC has never entered, analyze the organisational risk in the
host country, provide strategic plan of how to deal with organization risk, and achieve good
firm performance. Presentations will take place in the tutorials.
Approach to the assessment
Your group will select a MNC and your task is to come up with a new foreign direct investment
project in a new host country
You can organize your presentation according to the following structure:
• Background of the MNC and the new foreign direct investment project
• An analysis of the external environments of the new host country
• Attractiveness of the new host country
• Identification of the types of organisational risks
• Strategic plan to deal with the organisational risks in the new host country and achieve
good firm performance
Your analysis should be focused on organizational & management issues discussed during
the lecturers and tutorials but not marketing/finance issues

Assessment criteria

1. Host-country Analysis
2. Application of concepts, theories and frameworks to identify organization risk
3. Recommendation for managing organisational risk in the host country
4. Structure of presentation, presentation skills, performance in Q&A session

Choice of presentation topic

• Submit the topic of your group presentation to your tutor before Week 5 and get an
approval beforehand.
• The approval of the selected topic will be on a first-come-first-serve basis
• No two groups can choose the same MNC and the same host country
• Your tutor will provide the list of chosen topics for your easy reference
• Consultation Week: Week 8 (15-minute per group)


Duration of your presentation

• Prepare a 30-minute PowerPoint slideshow
• Address questions during a 10-minute Q&A session
UNSW Business School

6

Schedule and order of presentation

• Presentation week: Weeks 9 & 10 (three groups per week)
• Order of presentation: Presentation order will be determined through a random allocation
process
Assessment submission instructions
• Submission type: Turnitin
• Submit presentation slide deck only. Use the following format for file name: group leader
name_week_tutor name. (e.g., PeterJason_W04_Christine).
• Only group leader needs to submit the file
• Due date: 12 Nov, 5:00pm
Grading and feedback
• Students are given oral and written feedback following their presentation
• Students are directed to use the rubrics and the instructions provided to design/prepare
their presentation

ASSESSMENT 3: Quiz (20%)
Description of assessment
The quiz assessment is designed to evaluate students’ comprehension of key concepts, theories,
and frameworks, and applications of these principles to practical scenarios. It may include
multiple-choice, short-answer, and application-based questions.

Assessment weeks: Weeks 3, 5, 7, & 10



ASSESSMENT 4: Participation (20%)
4a) Class Participation (16%)
Description of assessment
For this assessment, you are expected to actively participate in all tutorial activities and
discussions. Your class participation is crucial to successful learning. Active class participation
will not only facilitate your learning process but also make the tutorial discussions lively and
exciting.
Approach to the assessment
• Read all assigned course materials, including readings, cases, and any supplementary
materials provided by the lecturer
• Come to tutorial sessions and prepare with thoughtful questions and comments related to
the course content and readings
UNSW Business School

7
• Actively participate in the discussion of cases by making insightful comments and
connections to course materials
• Demonstrate your understanding of the ways to manage organizational risks in global
context
• Engage with your peers respectfully by constructively analysing peers’ arguments and
responding thoughtfully to their contributions.

Assessment criteria

1. Quality of contributions
2. Communication skills
3. Engagement with peers
4. Understanding of concepts and application to context
Assessment weeks
• Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, & 10

4b) Country Report (4%)
Description of assessment
For this assessment, you will deliver a presentation to summarize the breaking or latest news
about a country. You will be evaluated based on the identification of main ideas and the ability
to concisely present ideas. Presentations will take place in the tutorial in Week 2.
Approach to the assessment
• Select the breaking or latest news about a country of your choice
• Provide a summary of the news

Assessment criteria

1. Identification of main ideas
2. Communication skills

Duration of your presentation

• Each student will spend 3 minutes to present the news by using PowerPoint slides
• Each presentation will be followed by a 2-minute Q&A

Assessment submission instructions
• Submission type: Turnitin
• Submit presentation slide deck only. Use the following format for file name: your
name_tutorial week_tutor name. (e.g., PeterJason_W02_Christine)
• The total number of PowerPoint slides should be no more than 6
• Due date: 24 Sep, 5:00pm
• Assessment week: Week 2


MARKING RUBRICS
Assessment 1: Case Critique (30%)
Criteria %  Fail  Pass  Credit  Distinction  High Distinction 
1. Identification of
the key issues of the
tutorial case


8% Demonstrates little or no
understanding of the
case. Issues identified are
irrelevant or superficial.
No evidence of critical
thinking or contextual
awareness.

Identifies some relevant
issues, but analysis lacks
depth. Overlook significant
aspects. Demonstrates
basic understanding of the
case context.
Recognizes most key
issues with reasonable
clarity. Shows ability to
prioritize and explain their
relevance. Some critical
thinking is evident, though
not consistently applied.
Clearly identifies and
prioritizes key issues with
strong justification.
Demonstrates solid
understanding of the case
and applies critical thinking
effectively.

Provides a comprehensive
and insightful identification of
all major issues. Prioritization
is logical and well-argued.
Demonstrates deep
contextual understanding.


2. Application of
concepts, theories
and frameworks to
analyze the tutorial
case


8% Demonstrates little
understanding of relevant
concepts, theories, or
frameworks. Application is
irrelevant. Analysis lacks
depth and coherence.
Shows basic
understanding of some
concepts and frameworks.
Application is limited with
minimal integration into
the case analysis.
Demonstrates a reasonable
grasp of key concepts and
theories. Applies them
appropriately to the case
with some critical insight.
Analysis is mostly relevant.
Applies relevant concepts,
theories, and frameworks
effectively and with clarity.
Analysis is insightful.
Integrates concepts, theories,
and frameworks seamlessly
into the case analysis.
Demonstrates exceptional
insight. Analysis is
sophisticated and highly
relevant throughout.
3. Problem-solving
and
recommendation
8% Recommendations are
missing, irrelevant, or
unsupported. Problem-
solving approach is
unclear or absent. No
connection to case details
or course concepts.
Basic recommendations
are provided but lack
depth or specificity.
Problem-solving may be
loosely connected to the
case. Limited use of
evidence or theory.
Recommendations are
appropriate and supported
by some analysis. Problem-
solving applies relevant
concepts. Some
justification is provided.
Recommendations are well-
developed and clearly
justified. Problem-solving
demonstrates strong
analytical thinking and
effective use of course
frameworks. Evidence is
used to support decisions.
Recommendations are
insightful and strongly
grounded in analysis.
Problem-solving is deeply
informed by case details and
theoretical frameworks.
Justification is compelling and
well-integrated.
4. Structure of
report, academic
writing and
referencing

6% Report lacks coherent
structure. Logical flow is
impaired.
Writing is unclear or
incoherent. Referencing
fails to meet academic
standards.
Basic structural elements
are present. Writing is
imprecise. Grammatical
errors are noticeable.
Referencing is
inconsistently applied.
Structure is generally
logical. Writing is generally
appropriate for academic
purposes. Referencing is
mostly correct, though
inconsistencies in
formatting.
Structure is clear and well-
developed. Writing is
coherent, with appropriate
academic tone. Referencing
is mostly consistent with the
required style.
Demonstrates exemplary
structural coherence. writing
is precise and polished.
Referencing consistently
adheres to the prescribed
citation style.

UNSW Business School

9

Assessment 2: Group Presentations (30%)
2a) Group Case Presentation (10%)
Criteria %  Fail  Pass  Credit  Distinction  High Distinction 
1. Identification of
the key issues of the
tutorial case


2.5% Demonstrates little or no
understanding of the
case. Issues identified
are irrelevant or
superficial. No evidence
of critical thinking or
contextual awareness.

Identifies some relevant
issues, but analysis lacks
depth. Overlook significant
aspects. Demonstrates
basic understanding of the
case context.
Recognizes most key issues
with reasonable clarity.
Shows ability to prioritize
and explain their relevance.
Some critical thinking is
evident, though not
consistently applied.
Clearly identifies and
prioritizes key issues with
strong justification.
Demonstrates solid
understanding of the case
and applies critical thinking
effectively.
Provides a comprehensive
and insightful identification of
all major issues. Prioritization
is logical and well-argued.
Demonstrates deep contextual
understanding.


2. Application of
concepts, theories
and frameworks to
analyze the tutorial
case


2.5% Demonstrates little
understanding of
relevant concepts,
theories, or frameworks.
Application is irrelevant.
Analysis lacks depth and
coherence.
Shows basic
understanding of some
concepts and frameworks.
Application is limited with
minimal integration into
the case analysis.
Demonstrates a reasonable
grasp of key concepts and
theories. Applies them
appropriately to the case
with some critical insight.
Analysis is mostly relevant.
Applies relevant concepts,
theories, and frameworks
effectively and with clarity.
Analysis is insightful.
Integrates concepts, theories,
and frameworks seamlessly
into the case analysis.
Demonstrates exceptional
insight. Analysis is
sophisticated and highly
relevant throughout.
3. Problem-solving
and
recommendation for
the tutorial case

2.5% Recommendations are
missing, irrelevant, or
unsupported. Problem-
solving approach is
unclear or absent. No
connection to case
details or course
concepts.
Basic recommendations
are provided but lack
depth or specificity.
Problem-solving may be
loosely connected to the
case. Limited use of
evidence or theory.
Recommendations are
appropriate and supported
by some analysis. Problem-
solving applies relevant
concepts. Some justification
is provided.
Recommendations are well-
developed and clearly
justified. Problem-solving
demonstrates strong
analytical thinking and
effective use of course
frameworks. Evidence is
used to support decisions.
Recommendations are
insightful and strongly
grounded in analysis.
Problem-solving is deeply
informed by case details and
theoretical frameworks.
Justification is compelling and
well-integrated.
4. Structure of
presentation
Presentation Skills
Performance in Q&A
session

2.5% Slides were difficult to
read and contained too
much information. Pace
was too fast or slow.
Reading from notes only.
Responses are unclear,
confusing, or off topic.

Slides are cluttered with
information with minimal
visual appeal. Pace
slightly too fast or slow.
Slides are predominantly
text-based, with images
that offer limited value to
the presentation. Read
from notes only. Some
responses are vague or
incomplete.

The audience was engaged
by the presentation with
limited distractibility. Pace
and timing need to be
adjusted. Effective use of
technology/visual aids.
Generally clear responses
with occasional lapses in
precision.
Audience is engaged by the
presentation. Mostly well-
paced and to time. Slides
are well considered with
elements of effective visuals
and technology. Clear, well-
structured answers that
demonstrate solid
understanding.
Audience is highly engaged by
the presentation. Appropriate
pace within allotted time.
Information is concise on
every slide. Novel and/or
highly effective use of
technology/visual aids.
Exceptionally clear, insightful,
and articulate responses that
enhance understanding.
UNSW Business School

10
2b) Group Project Presentation (20%)

Criteria %  Fail  Pass  Credit  Distinction  High Distinction 
1. Host-country
Analysis


5% Analysis is inaccurate.
Demonstrates little
understanding of host
country dynamics.
Evidence is missing. No
meaningful integration of
data.
Analysis is basic and
descriptive, with limited
critical engagement.
Important contextual
factors may be
overlooked. Evidence is
weakly integrated.
Offers a competent analysis
of host country conditions,
though some aspects may
lack depth. Evidence is
generally appropriate.
Provides a well-developed
analysis of host country’s
environment. Evidence is
well-sourced and clearly
supports the analysis.
Demonstrates exceptional
insight into the host country’s
environment. Analysis is
contextually sophisticated.
Evidence is comprehensive and
critically evaluated.

2. Application of
concepts, theories
and frameworks to
identify organization
risk


5% Little understanding of
relevant concepts,
theories, or frameworks.
Application is incorrect or
irrelevant. Analysis is
undeveloped. No
meaningful engagement
with organisational risk.
Basic understanding of
concepts and frameworks
is evident, but application
is limited. Analysis lacks
critical engagement with
risk issues.
Demonstrates a sound
understanding of relevant
theories and frameworks.
Application is generally
accurate. Analysis is
competent, though may be
descriptive in parts.
Applies appropriate
concepts and frameworks to
identify key organisational
risks. Shows strong
understanding and analytical
competence. Analysis
shows risk implications.
Demonstrates exceptional
mastery of relevant concepts,
theories, and frameworks.
Applies them with precision to
identify complex organisational
risks. Analysis is sophisticated.
3. Recommendation
for managing
organisational risk
in the host country

5% Recommendations are
generic and
disconnected from
organisational realities.
Justification is missing,
incoherent, or
unsupported by analysis.
Recommendations only
partially address
organisational risks.
Feasibility is questionable.
Justification is poorly
reasoned and lacks
analytical rigour.
Recommendations address
major risks, though may lack
specificity. Justification is
logical, though may lack
critical thoroughness.
Recommendations are well-
developed and address key
organisational risks.
Solutions demonstrate good
alignment with
organisational capabilities
and host country conditions.
Justification shows critical
engagement with risk
management.
Recommendations directly
address identified risks with
insight. Solutions demonstrate
strong operational and strategic
viability. Justification is
supported by robust analysis.
4. Structure of
presentation
Presentation Skills
Performance in Q&A
session

5% Slides were difficult to
read and contained too
much information. Pace
was too fast or slow.
Reading from notes only.
Responses are unclear,
confusing, or off topic.

Slides are cluttered with
information with minimal
visual appeal. Pace
slightly too fast or slow.
Slides are predominantly
text-based, with images
that offer limited value to
the presentation. Read
from notes only. Some
responses are vague or
incomplete.

The audience was engaged
by the presentation with
limited distractibility. Pace
and timing need to be
adjusted. Effective use of
technology/visual aids.
Generally clear responses
with occasional lapses in
precision.
Audience is engaged by the
presentation. Mostly well-
paced and to time. Slides
are well considered with
elements of effective visuals
and technology. Clear, well-
structured answers that
demonstrate solid
understanding.
Audience is highly engaged by
the presentation. Appropriate
pace within allotted time.
Information is concise on every
slide. Novel and/or highly
effective use of
technology/visual aids.
Exceptionally clear, insightful,
and articulate responses that
enhance understanding.
UNSW Business School

11

Assessment 4: Participation (20%)

4a) Class Participation (16%)
Criteria %  Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
1. Quality of
contributions

4%  Rarely contributes to
class discussions or
offers insights of
substance.
Contributes to class
discussions, but with
occasional lapses in
relevance.
Contributes to class
discussions, but with
occasional lapses in depth.
Participates in class
discussions with clarity and
relevance, contributing
meaningful insights regularly.
Actively engages in class
discussions, offering insightful
and thought-provoking
contributions consistently
throughout the course.
2. Communication
skills

4%  Struggles to
communicate ideas
effectively with frequent
lapses in clarity or
articulation.
Communicates ideas
adequately but with
occasional lapses in clarity.
Communicates ideas
adequately but with
occasional lapses in
articulation.
Communicates ideas clearly,
demonstrating good
articulation and adequate use
of supporting evidence.
Presents ideas persuasively,
with clear articulation and
effective use of supporting
evidence. Demonstrates a high
level of ability to be persuasive
using correct use of business
terminology.
3. Engagement
with peers
4% Rarely engages with
peers or demonstrates
active listening during
class discussions.
Listens to peers but with
occasional lapses in
attentiveness.
Listens to peers but with
occasional lapses in
engagement.
Listens to peers attentively,
responds appropriately, and
engages in dialogue with
peers regularly.
Actively listens to peers,
responds thoughtfully, and
engages in constructive
dialogue throughout the course.
4. Understanding of
concepts and
application to
context
4% Demonstrates limited
understanding. Applies
irrelevant concepts.
Demonstrates basic
understanding. Applies
concepts with weak
relevance.
Demonstrates general
understanding. Applies
concepts with partial
relevance.
Demonstrates clear and
accurate understanding.
Applies concepts
appropriately to contexts.
Demonstrates sophisticated,
nuanced understanding.
Applies concepts insightfully to
complex contexts.




4b) Country Report (4%)
Criteria %  Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
1. Identification of
main ideas

2%  Misses or misrepresents
the main idea. Lacks
clarity or relevance.
Recognizes the general
topic but lacks precision.
Recognizes the general
topic but lacks depth in
interpretation.
Accurately identifies the
main idea. Shows
awareness of broader
relevance.
Clearly identifies the central
theme and significance of the
news story. Demonstrates
deep understanding of its
implications.
UNSW Business School

12
2. Communication
skills

2%  Struggles to
communicate ideas
effectively, with frequent
lapses in clarity or
articulation.
Communicates ideas
adequately but with
occasional lapses in clarity.
Communicates ideas
adequately but with
occasional lapses in
articulation.
Communicates ideas clearly,
demonstrating good
articulation and adequate
use of supporting evidence.
Presents ideas persuasively,
with clear articulation and
effective use of supporting
evidence. Demonstrates a
high level of ability to be
persuasive using correct use
of business terminology.


UNSW Business School

13
APPENDIX: CASES AND CASE QUESTIONS
Case 1: McDonald’s in the Middle East: Navigating Political and Ethical Minefields (NeilsonJournals Publishing, 2025)
Case questions:
1. Apply the PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) framework to conduct a comprehensive analysis of
the Middle East market. Discuss the key factors within each of these categories that influence business operations and strategies in the region.
Provide specific examples to support your analysis and propose strategic recommendations for businesses looking to enter or expand within this
market.

2. Analyze the ramifications of political instability on the business landscape of the Middle East. Provide concrete examples and insights to
illustrate the complex dynamics at play.


Case 2: Barclays’ Response to Crises of Legitimacy (Sage, 2025)

Case questions:

1. How useful are Bourdieu’s ideas for understanding the actions of firms?

2. Do you think that Barclays’ sponsorship of the arts did or did not help to restore its legitimacy?

3. Are there other strategies it could have followed that may have been effective?


Case 3: Italy’s D & G in China: Fashion Show Canceled in Shanghai Following Scandal (textbook case, p. 164-167)

Case questions:

1. D&G faced a consumer backlash in China after the video scandal. List the main reasons why you think this happened.

2. Fashion houses often use edgy ads to promote products. Such edgy campaigns attract attention and can cross the line to cause disrespect in
global markets. How can multinational companies ensure advertising content does not antagonize local consumers?

UNSW Business School

14
3. Discuss the risk of using humor when advertising across borders. Multinational is not necessarily multicultural. What do companies need to
consider when advertising in the Chinese luxury market?


Case 4: FuelCell Energy: Is China the Right Market? (Society for Case Research, 2024)

Case questions:

1. What impact do the emerging trends in the Chinese clean energy market have on FCE?

2. How does a risk assessment affect the way FCE should view the Chinese clean energy market?

3. Is now a good time for FCE to enter the Chinese energy market?


Case 5: Ikinari Steak: Reflections on a Failed Foreign Market Expansion (Society for Case Research, 2024)

Case questions:

1. How would you evaluate Ikinari Steak’s U.S. expansion strategy?

2. What differences between Japanese and American culture and business environment contributed to the failure of the Ikinari Steak expansion
in Manhattan?


Case 6: International Strategic Alliance Life Cycle: Reinvent or Exit (NeilsonJournals Publishing, 2025)

Case questions:

1. Why would a company from a developing nation seek to work in strategic collaboration with a company from a developed nation and vice
versa?

2. Should Silox purchase 100% share in the JV?
UNSW Business School

15

Case Critique & Group Case Presentation: Turnitin Submission Schedule

Week Cases Turnitin Submission Due Date
Week 4 1. McDonald’s in the Middle East: Navigating Political and Ethical Minefields
(NeilsonJournals Publishing, 2025)
2. Barclays’ Response to Crises of Legitimacy (Sage, 2025)
8 Oct, 5:00pm
Week 5 3. Italy’s D&G in China: Fashion Show Canceled in Shanghai Following Scandal
(Textbook case, p.164-7)
4. FuelCell Energy: Is China the Right Market? (Society for Case Research, 2024)
15 Oct, 5:00pm
Week 7 5. Ikinari Steak: Reflections on a Failed Foreign Market Expansion (Society for Case
Research, 2024)
6. International Strategic Alliance Life Cycle: Reinvent or Exit (NeilsonJournals
Publishing, 2025)
29 Oct, 5:00pm


学霸联盟