Case summary:
Company WT is one the world’s largest and most successful retailer company. In Country UA it is the formula for low prices, cost control better inventory management practices and others. The company began to expand into other countries. They have slipped up in many countries such as Country IA, Country GY, Country SK, and others.
The cultural differences of the countries made it increasingly difficult for the business practices for Company WT. The difficulty in adjusting the business practices of Company WT to the different cultural differences was one of the biggest reasons for its slip-ups.
To explain: The reason why Company WT was unsuccessful in Country GY and others.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter IC Solutions
International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace
- Provide answer general accountingarrow_forwardIf an oil rig was built in the sea, the cost to be capitalised is likely to include the cost of constructing the asset and the present value of the cost of dismantling it. If the asset cost $10 million to construct, and would cost $4 million to remove in 20 years, then the present value of this dismantling cost must be calculated. If interest rates were 5%, the present value of the dismantling costs are calculated as follows: $4 million x 1/1.0520 = $1,507,558 The total to be capitalised would be $10 million + $1,507,558 = $11,507,558. This would be depreciated over 20 years, so 11,507,558 x 1/20 = $575,378 per year. Each year, the liability would be increased by the interest rate of 5%. In year 1 this would mean the liability increases by $75,378 (making the year end liability $1,582,936). This increase is taken to the finance costs in the statement of profit or loss.arrow_forwardConsider a situation involving determining right and wrong. Do you believe utilitarianism provides a more objective viewpoint than moral rights in this context? Why or why not? How about when comparing utilitarianism to principles of justice? Share your thoughts. Reflect on this statement: "Every principle of distributive justice, whether that of the egalitarian, the capitalist, the socialist, the libertarian, or Rawls, in the end is illegitimately advocating some type of equality." Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Why might someone claim this, and how would you respond?arrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education