Search results

Corporate social responsibility, sustainability and business ethics.

This case has been designed for undergraduate students, with two target audiences. The first is business and management students following modules in corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability and business ethics. Here the accent is on allowing the students to explore and debate how CSR agendas are emerging within a specific sector of the retail economy. The second is students pursuing fashion, clothing, textile, retailing and consumer studies degrees and here the focus is on how some of the leading fashion goods retailers are addressing CSR. More generally the case can also be used on “Contemporary Issues” modules within general business and management programmes.

This small case offers an exploratory review of the emerging CSR issues currently being publicly addressed by the world's leading fashion goods retailers. It includes a brief introduction to CSR; a brief thumbnail sketch of the fashion goods industry; details of the method of enquiry; a description of the CSR issues currently being publicly addressed by the top ten fashion good retailers on their corporate web sites; and some critical reflections on the CSR agendas being pursued by these retailers. The case study is novel in two ways. First, it focuses upon what is an emerging market issue rather than on emerging markets per se though a number of the issues raised in the case have major implications for emerging economies. Second, it addresses the CSR issues being addressed by a number of the leading fashion goods retailers and as such it a not a case which relates to individual decision making. While the case is principally focussed upon the retail sector it ranges across the whole of the supply chain.

The paper provides an accessible review of the CSR issues and agendas currently being pursued by the leading fashion goods retailers and as such it will be of interest to academics, students and practitioners who are interested in both the fashion industry and corporate sustainability.

Teaching notes are available, please consult your librarian for access.

For four years, Valerie Thorpe was Director of Accounting for Taurus Construction. She was fired by the company's owner, Vic Bullard, when she refused to falsify accounting entries. Bullard's directive would have lowered profits, thereby deceiving his business partner and committing tax evasion. Until her firing late in the spring of 2011, Valerie had a few concerns about Bullard's lack of ethics in his business dealings. However, she has not questioned him previously because of her own emotional condition after the unexpected death of her husband. During the spring 2011 semester in graduate school, Valerie was inspired when her classmates recounted their own experiences of resigning from jobs because of unethical managers and owners. Valerie had thought of resigning from Taurus; but, Bullard fired her first. Six months after her firing, Valerie is seriously contemplating whether she should report Bullard's tax evasion to the Internal Revenue Service.

Field Based Research. Interviews with the case protagonist.

The case is suitable for graduate and undergraduate courses in business ethics, accounting ethics, entrepreneurship, income tax accounting and an undergraduate auditing class.

This is a real-life case applying ethical frameworks coverage of which can be challenging as students perceive those theories and frameworks as “dry.”

General: professional ethics; corporate social responsibility; charity. Specific: the ethical issues of philanthropy; corporate philanthropy; selection of a philanthropic organization; and how much corporate giving is appropriate.

MBA.

C.P. Manuel Pérez-Sánchez, after reading an article about how famous businessmen in the USA are dedicating their fortunes to charity, begins to wonder about his own business' lack of charitable involvement. He wonders whether his own business, Biznet Norteamérica, located in Querétaro, México, is profitable enough to begin to give back something to the community. What he learns about corporate charity in México leaves him more confused than anything. He is left with the difficult decision of trying to determine whether, how much, and to whom should he donate some of his business' profits.

Ultimately, the case has a threefold goal. First, to raise awareness about the issue of corporate charity (as opposed to personal charity). Second, to fill a void in the literature of business ethics in México, especially regarding the question of corporate charity. And third, to allow future Mexican business leaders the opportunity to begin to discuss what and how they should think about the issue of corporate charity, particularly its ethical component. The case is real and reflects the actual struggle of a Querétaro business person with no ethics background to come to some tentative conclusions regarding this new (for him) issue. The case could appeal to many of the students because they, like the protagonist, would one day be a part of a moderately successful Mexican enterprise. This case could allow them be able to “put themselves in the shoes” of the decision-maker as a rehearsal for their own future decisions about business charity.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

The learning outcomes are as follows: Students/participants can understand the type of financial fraud pertaining to the case; Students/participants can analyse the case using the fraud triangle perspective; students/participants can describe detection/anticipation strategies to prevent such acts from taking place in the future; students/participants can evaluate the case using the ethical decision-making framework; and students/participants can comprehend the importance of financial literacy when investing, especially in this digital era.

This case discusses the investment funds mismanagement accusations addressed to PT Jouska Finansial Indonesia (Jouska). Jouska is a financial planner business that was immensely popular among Indonesian young investors. It actively posted interesting content on its social media accounts, gaining attention from the millennial and Gen Z generations. However, in 2020, many of its clients reported and filed complaints that their portfolio values decreased significantly because of Jouska’s decision to invest their funds in low-quality stocks. Jouska was also alleged to violate its role as a financial planner by being able to perform several activities that fell under the authority of investment managers. This case attracted the attention of authorities so that the Investment Alert Task Force (SWI) stopped Jouska’s operational activities and initiated an investigation into the case. SWI also blocked Jouska’s websites, applications and social media accounts, in cooperation with the Ministry of Communication and Information. Despite settlement agreements that Jouska claimed had been offered to several clients, at the end of 2020 some of its clients and former clients filed a formal lawsuit. As of January 2021, several alleged criminal actions attributed to Jouska were still under investigation, comprised of money laundering, clients’ funds embezzlement, fraud, and insider trading. In October 2021, Aakar’s status was a suspect in the allegations. This case is another example of investment misconduct or fraud; to put it another way, it is the effect. It is expected that the participants can deliberate other perspectives during the discussion that could be the cause of such a case, hence viewing it holistically.

Undergraduate level.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

The authors believe the theoretical foundations for this case study lie in the following two disciplines, primarily, but could be expanded to religion and organizational culture:i. Ethical decision-makingii. Cross-cultural competenceiii. Leadership

This is an actual case, and the fact pattern and timeline occurred as depicted. The first author is the protagonist, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Shawn Browning. The names of case characters have been disguised. The second and third authors are colleagues of the first author. This case was tested in three undergraduate organizational behavior and leadership classes at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

This disguised case follows US Army Officer LTC Shawn Browning, leader of a prominent US Army base located in Germany. As the commander of US Army Garrison Schweinfurt, LTC Browning was responsible for the health and welfare of 10,000 residents, including soldiers, family members and civilian employees. A community member lodged a complaint against a brothel named Haus One (a legal establishment under German law) located adjacent to the base and near family housing and the base elementary school. LTC Browning had the authority to render the brothel off-limits to US personnel, and he took the necessary steps prior to rendering a decision, including the appointment of a review board to investigate the situation and provide a recommendation. The board recommended not placing Haus One off-limits. The case focuses on LTC Browning’s values and his desire to ensure the welfare of his community while adhering to local legal and cultural norms. Cross-cultural and ethical issues surface throughout the case, which concludes with LTC Browning’s pondering of how to make a final decision.

The authors believe this is targeted at undergraduate students with some background in ethical decision-making, organizational culture and cross-cultural competence.

This case features a county planning director as he approves or turns down a permit application for the Harvest Wind Farm Project, located in Klickitat County on the Columbia Plateau in Washington State. The utilities involved and Klickitat County stood to benefit through new revenue generation and a favorable federal construction grant associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and certain landowners stood to make substantial royalties. However, other landowners were also worried about declining property values, environmental groups had raised objections to the effect of turbines on the pristine Columbia River view, and uncertainty about health effects had recently become more of an issue. Nationally, “wind turbine syndrome” and “shadow-flicker” effects had been linked to wind farm operations. Given these concerns and the uncertainty, would the gains to stakeholders justify signing off on the project?

The case examines the development and launch of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) based on JUST Capital's socially responsible corporate ranking methodologies. The case provides a market overview of Environment, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) and socially responsible investing (SRI), what has driven growth in those areas worldwide, and several best-practice investment approaches. Following the overview, the case describes the founding and development of JUST Capital, explores JUST Capital's ranking methodologies, and presents the decision point faced by the CEO: requisite selection of one of three strategies in order for JUST Capital to generate “self-sustaining” revenue.

This case offers the students to see the impact business ethics concepts, including corporate social responsibility, ethical obligation, ethical strategy, alienation, corporate activism, sociopolitical activism, symbolism, transparency, integrity, decoupled organization, opportunism, moral muteness or moral exclusion, etc. Through the student’s own ethical sensitivity, they can then make an informed decision grounded in fundamental ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethics of Care, Virtue Theory, Confucianism, etc.

Data for this case has been gathered entirely from publicly available secondary sources, including online resources, mainstream media reports, biased (opinion-based) media outlets, social media statements from all stakeholder groups (students, business, university) and meeting minutes from campus organizations. None of the named individuals nor entities, in this case, have ever been contacted by the authors.

In Fall 2020, Boise State University contracted a locally owned and operated coffee shop to open a location on-campus. The shop owner was engaged to a police officer who had been permanently injured in an altercation with a dangerous fugitive. For his sacrifice, this police officer was awarded the Medal of Honor from the City of Boise. To support her fiancé, the coffee shop owner displayed a Thin Blue Line flag on the front door of her off-campus location. Students heard of this display and began to voice their objections through administrative and social media channels. The business countered back at claims that they supported racism and ultimately asked to be released from their contract with the university. They closed their on-campus business, having operated the location for less than two months. Media representation of this case created a vocal response both from those who support the business’ use of this imagery and those who support the student’s decision to boycott this business on ethical grounds.

Business ethics: 300–400 level; Business strategy: 300–400 level.

“Jessica’s dilemma: honesty or loyalty” is the true story of a Staff Accountant, Jessica, who discovered embezzlement by the controller, Michael. Jessica worked at a US subsidiary of a multinational organization. One of the company’s vendors contacted Jessica regarding unpaid invoices. Following up on the inquiry, Jessica found suspicious manual journal entries in the general ledger. When she questioned her boss, Michael, about her findings, he first denied the situation, then blamed another employee, and ultimately tried to intimidate Jessica so that she would not press the issue. Jessica’s investigation led to the discovery that Michael had been embezzling money from the company. To complicate matters, Jessica and her husband had a close relationship with Michael and his wife outside the office. Jessica had to make a choice between being loyal to a family friend and being honest and loyal toward her employer.

The authors obtained the information for this case from the staff accountant and her husband via a series of interviews. The information was verified via publicly available news articles on the presented case. Additionally, legal documents, which were publicly available, were also used for information. The name of the company and the names of the individuals in the case were changed to protect the identities and privacy of the involved parties.

An instructor can use this case in business ethics, introductory management, human resource law or accounting courses targeting undergraduate or introductory MBA students. This case is best used in the beginning of the suggested courses, as the instructor introduces ethical dilemmas, ethical frameworks, and stakeholder theory. The case is designed so that students do not need a background in business or business ethics to be able to successfully complete the case analysis. Additionally, the case provides a platform to discuss the differences in an ethical vs an unethical manager and how to respond to such a situation.

Many employees are afraid to report ethical wrongdoing to upper management, or to engage in ethical dissent. When upper management is receptive to reports of wrongdoing, ethical dissent within the organization to upper-level management has more organizational benefits than when the issue is shared with coworkers or external agencies. This is because upper management has the power to make a difference in the situation and may be able to keep the situation within the organization to eliminate possible reputation problems for the organization. The presented case can be utilized to discuss the importance of feeling safe in an organization as it pertains to reporting wrongdoing within the organization and how organizational culture and leadership can enhance or diminish that feeling.

The fraud diamond theory, the COSO framework on internal control and theories of ethical leadership and ethical decision making are applied.

The details of this case were compiled using publicly available information, including court records and news reports. No modifications were made to the names of individuals or places mentioned in the case. All resources have been properly cited.

Employee embezzlement is a common issue in limited resource organizations when adequate controls are not in place to prevent or detect fraud. In such organizations, personal financial hardships can drive individuals to commit crimes that are out of character. This case is a story of a respectable small-town couple implicated in a near million dollar embezzlement scheme. Students are asked to consider what went wrong and propose solutions for the prevention of similar crimes. Lessons learned from this case emphasize the importance of ethical leadership, creating a strong ethical environment and how small unethical acts can escalate over time.

Instructors can utilize this case to teach the topics of ethical leadership and decision making, fraud prevention and detection and internal controls. The themes of this case fit well into any business ethics, accounting or auditing course at the undergraduate or graduate level. The case has been implemented in courses for full-time and part-time MBAs, and master’s programs in finance, human resources and accounting.