Part 1
Read the case carefully and analysis according to PWC Sustainability Framework.
Part 2
Answer the following questions based on the case study provided in PDF
(1) Should Jones and Sprunk adjust the zero discharge target and why? If not, how should they prevent the potential cost overruns?
(2) What were the key accomplishments for Eitel as V.P. for the Corporate Responsibility?
(3) Likewise, what were the key accomplishments for Jones as V.P. of Corporate Responsibility?
(4) Has Nike completely recovered its reputation? Provide evidence for your answer.

Case Introduction/Precis/Synopsis.
If you read the synopsis, you don’t need to read the case study to know exactly what is going on Founded in 2001, the FMCL was a manufacturer of complex printed circuit boards that ran cruise control modules in all domestic and foreign automobiles. Beginning as a partnership between two computer engineers, FMCL went public in 2005. Enjoying considerable success the company continued to grow, and acquired a Japanese competitor in 2015. In 2018 its contracts with major automobile manufacturers were not renewed due to the actions of a recent market entrant, a Korean competitor who offered the exact same product at a price thirty percent lower than FMCL, resulting in the deterioration of its share price. This share price deterioration in turn attracted a corporate raider who was now attempting a hostile takeover through a leveraged buy-out. The Primary Problem  A primary problem is not a symptom, cause, or a result of the problem. Without the primary problem, the case “goes away”… A Korean competitor is providing the exact same product to FMCL clients at a price 30 percent less than FMCL. Secondary Problem(s)  Secondary problems typically are symptoms, causes, or the result of the primary problem. 1. Deterioration of share value 2. Hostile take-over attempt by a corporate raider 3. Stakeholder management deficiencies: The organizational is deficient in monitoring its clients (stakeholders) and the actions of its competition (stakeholders) Analysis 1. Key stakeholders (those persons or organizations with significant power to influence the company and high interest in the activities of the company) a. Shareholders of FMCL (concerned with their return on investment and the profitability of FMCL) b. Employees of FMCL (concerned with the company’s “going concern” capacity to continue to offer them employment) c. Customers of FMCL (concerned with the price offering of the product – that represents a “cost” to the client affecting its own profitability; concerned with the extent to which FMCL maintains “stakeholder dialogue” to listen to input from clients [through which the existence of the Korean competitor could have been known earlier) d. Competition (the Korean company but also other competition – known and unknown; concerned with maximizing market share) 2. Money a. FMCL shareholders can be expected to react negatively, pulling their investment unless a remedy is developed and implemented in the very short term b. A continuing declining share value and sales could ultimately result in the failure of FMCL 3. Globalization a. Competition now comes from anywhere. FMCL must be vigilant in monitoring competition and potential competition in a range of companies in a range of countries. This requires dedicated personnel to monitor all sources of information including blogs, social media, mainstream press, and also to have contacts in other countries where it would be feasible for competition to arise 4. Ethics a. There is nothing to suggest that FMCL has operated in an unethical manner. While the actions of the corporate raider may be perceived by some stakeholders to be unethical, there is nothing illegal in the attempt of a hostile leveraged buy-out. 5. SWOT Analysis a. Strengths (internal): knowledge of the manufacturing process with good track record of success; comparative longevity in this market; other strengths are possible b. Weaknesses (internal): organizational deficiencies relating to stakeholder management; deficiencies in monitoring the market and competitors; other weaknesses are possible) c. Opportunities (external): reorganize to ensure coverage for the organizational weaknesses; revisit manufacturing processes with a view to decrease manufacturing costs and pass savings on to customers; other opportunities are possible d. Threats (external): the Korean competitor but also, other potential competitors; the corporate raider; other threats are possible Restrictions/Constraints  Restrictions and constraints (or assumptions) can take a variety of forms, and generally have an effect on the recommended course of action 1. Is there any information that is not provided in the case that would affect the recommendation? a. The financial condition of FMCL is not known: do they have sufficient cash reserves to weather the storm? Could they match the price? b. The length of the contracts and the terms of the contracts the customers signed with the Korean firm is not known. Could they break the contract and return to FMCL under the right conditions? c. Are the shareholders predisposed to “selling out” to the corporate raider? d. The quality of the Korean company’s products is the same as FMCL’s products Alternate Courses of Actions There are essentially two alternatives: 1) Attempt to save the company; and 2) sell to the corporate raider. 1. Attempt to save the company Certain actions are more urgent than others, but to save the company FMCL will need to undertake a number of actions in the very short term (students may have other views): Immediate 1. Reach out to clients and offer to match the Korean company’s price to FMCL clients and to cover the early cancellation costs 2. Reach out to FMCL shareholders advising them not to take the offer of the corporate raider as this deterioration in share value is temporary and expected to turn around in the near term Short-term 1. Establish a unit at FMCL responsible for stakeholder relations and mobile the unit to dialogue with all key stakeholders Medium-term  Establish an intelligence monitoring team at FMCL with a mandate to undertake ongoing environmental scanning Long-term  Monitor the effectiveness of practices put in place to mitigate future risk 2. Sell the company to the corporate raider This is essentially the “do nothing” option, following which would likely result in the raider obtaining the company. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is to save the company. The implementation is generally described in the action plan above, however more specifics would be required in elaborating each stage of the preferred alternative.

Develop another internal controls system, but this time, in the purchases and fixed assets business areas.
Prepare a 12- to 16-slide presentation describing the purchases and fixed assets business areas.
Include any associated risk in these areas.
Describe specific internal controls that include authorization of transactions, segregation of duties, adequate records and documentation, security of assets, and independent checks and reconciliation for each business area.