(a) (i) What are the similarities and dissimilarities between domestic operations management and international operations…

(a)(i) Domestic versus international operations management

Similarities: both manage the same core decisions (product and process design, capacity, location, quality, inventory, scheduling and supply chain) and aim at efficiency, quality, cost and delivery performance.

Dissimilarities: international operations span several countries, so they face exchange-rate and political risk, different laws, taxes, tariffs and standards, longer and more complex supply chains and logistics, customs delays, cultural and language differences, time-zone coordination, and a trade-off between global standardisation and local adaptation.

(a)(ii) Strategic issues in international operations management

1. Location of facilities: choosing countries and sites by cost, skills, markets, incentives and risk.
2. Make or buy and sourcing: in-house, outsourcing, offshoring, and choice of global suppliers.
3. Supply chain and logistics design: lead time, inventory placement, transport modes and customs.
4. Product and process design: global standard versus local adaptation, and technology choice.
5. Capacity and scale: serving world demand through a network of plants.
6. Quality and standards: ISO and local regulation, and consistent quality across sites.
7. Coordination and information systems: planning and control across time zones, and ERP integration.
8. Risk management: currency, political, disruption and dependence on a single supplier, and building resilience.
9. Partnerships: joint ventures, licensing and alliances, and technology transfer with protection of intellectual property.
10. Labour, ethics and sustainability: labour standards, environmental norms and social responsibility.

These issues must fit with the firm's global competitive strategy.

(a)(iii) Issues in global organisational design

Structure: choosing between an international division, global product divisions, geographic area units, a matrix, or a transnational network. Balance: global integration versus local responsiveness. Authority: centralisation versus decentralisation and the role of headquarters and subsidiaries. Coordination and control: reporting, performance systems and cross-unit teams. People: staffing mix of expatriates and locals, and culture. Knowledge flow: transfer of learning among units. Legal form: branch, subsidiary or joint venture, with local laws and tax.

(b)(i) Why M&As are gaining popularity among Indian corporates

M&As give fast growth, new markets, technology, brands and scale without building from scratch. Liberalised foreign investment and outbound norms, easier merger procedure under the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI takeover rules, access to finance, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which opens distressed assets, have helped. Indian firms went global through deals such as Tata Steel–Corus and Tata Motors–Jaguar Land Rover, while consolidation in telecom (Vodafone–Idea) and e-commerce (Walmart–Flipkart) reflect scale and competition.

(b)(ii) Possibility of hostile takeover

Yes, but it is hard in India. A hostile bid can proceed by buying shares in the market and making an open offer, which SEBI's takeover regulations require once holding crosses 25%, or by seeking board change through shareholder votes. L&T's acquisition of a stake in Mindtree in 2019, resisted by Mindtree's management, is an example. Obstacles are high promoter holdings, the need for approval where thresholds are crossed (Competition Commission), financing, and board resistance. Hostile takeovers are therefore possible but rare, and usually succeed only when the target's promoters are willing to sell.

(b)(iii) Why M&As fail despite planning

Common reasons: overpaying and overestimating synergies; poor due diligence; cultural clash and weak post-merger integration; loss of key talent; heavy debt that becomes unmanageable when markets turn; and regulatory delays. Examples: Tata Steel's acquisition of Corus (2007), financed with heavy debt just before the 2008 downturn, strained the group for years; the Ranbaxy–Daiichi Sankyo deal (2008) ran into regulatory and quality problems at the target; Daimler–Chrysler suffered from cultural and strategic misfit.

(c)(i) Corporate governance framework and scandals

Scandals such as Satyam (2009, accounting fraud), the IL&FS default (2018) and bank frauds showed failures of boards, auditors and promoters. The framework responds through the Companies Act, 2013 (independent directors, audit and nomination committees, related-party rules, whistle-blower mechanism, auditor rotation, class actions, NFRA and SFIO) and SEBI's Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements, 2015 (board composition, disclosures, insider trading rules), with the 2017 Kotak Committee reforms and RBI norms for banks. It acts through prevention (board and disclosure duties), detection (audit, whistle-blowing) and penalty (SEBI, NCLT, SFIO).

Assessment: the law is strong on paper, but weaknesses remain: promoter dominance, doubtful independence of directors, audit quality, slow enforcement, and reliance on box-ticking over ethical culture. Effective governance needs better enforcement, board accountability and shareholder activism.

(c)(ii) PDS, food and nutrition security

Functioning: the Targeted PDS under the National Food Security Act, 2013 covers up to 75% of rural and 50% of urban people; priority households get 5 kg grain per person per month at ₹1 to ₹3 per kg, and Antyodaya households 35 kg per household. The FCI procures at MSP and states distribute through fair-price shops; Aadhaar seeding, ePoS and One Nation One Ration Card improve targeting and portability, and free grain was added in 2020.

Efficiency gaps: leakage and diversion (the Shanta Kumar Committee estimated large leakage), exclusion and inclusion errors, poor quality, and high storage losses and subsidy cost. The PDS is cereal-heavy and targets calories, whereas hunger today is also about proteins and micronutrients; NFHS-5 (2019–21) shows stunting at 35.5% and wasting at 19.3%. The statement is therefore largely valid: the PDS gives access, not nutrition. Reform needs wider commodities (pulses, millets, fortified rice), cleaner delivery, and links with nutrition schemes.