Outline two reasons why MM may relocate all of its operations to Bengaluru (lines 124–142).

Explain how the proposed contract with Country X may conflict with MM ’s ethical objectives (lines 114–123).

Reasons could include:

• Fast growth of MM in India / success of the Indian office /will count for 60 % of business by 2025
• Excellent IT facilities in Bengaluru
• Improving infrastructure in Bengaluru
• Lower rents in Bengaluru 
• Highly trained potential workforce in Bengaluru
• Bengaluru’s existing film industry
• Push factor: continued (Brexit-related) uncertainties in UK (alluded to in the case)

The question is about relocation to Bengalaru specifically and not India, generally.

Mark as 2 + 2.

Accept any other relevant reason.

Award [1] for each reason identified, up to [2], and award [1] additional mark for appropriate application.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands for May 2016 forward, available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials.

MM’s ethics include choice of customer. MM takes a firm line on:

• Equal opportunities
• Carbon footprint
• Freedom of expression
• Exploitation of employees
• Cultural diversity

The proposed contract conflicts with MM ethics because Country X has been accused of:

• human rights abuses (against equal opportunities, cultural diversity)
• arresting journalists for criticizing the government (freedom of expression)
• persecuting people for religious opinions (diversity)
• doing little to reduce poverty (equal opportunities)
• doing little to improve environmental record (carbon footprint).

The proposed contract could negatively affect the reputation of MM. MM has worked hard to develop its profile and credibility as an ethical company, but this image could be damaged. This could have negative implications for future contracts, as some current clients may not want to be associated with MM any longer. This may be the case of some NGOs that specifically campaign for human rights or carbon footprint – and whose own CSR policies may stop them from working with an agency that does not consistently share the same values. Besides, country X has “arrested journalists for criticizing the government” (line 121) – with the contract, MM could give the impression that it condones such practices, and some journalists could create a negative campaign against MM, suggesting that its ethical claims are only a smoke screen meant to get them more contracts and more profit.

Accept any other relevant explanation.

Marks should be allocated according to the paper 1 markbands for May 2016 forward section A.

Award a maximum of [3] for a theoretical answer.

Award a maximum of [4] for an answer that describes MM ethics and the proposed contract with country X.

Most candidates showed some understanding of the reasons for business relocation, however not all of them could apply their reasons to the business (MM) and to the place (Bengaluru). The better answers chose two valid reasons and related them directly to Bengaluru, as opposed to India in general (so comments about Brexit, however topical, did not really help make a case for a relocation to Bengaluru).

Many candidates simply listed MM’s ethical stance and the failings of Country X, copying long extracts from the case study. Better candidates were able to relate the two lists with explanations as to why Country X was unsuitable despite the contract’s financial attractiveness, and what the impact for MM would be, especially in terms of brand image, reputation, customer loyalty and future customers. Unfortunately, many responses were descriptive.