Search results

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

After completion of this case, students will be able to: define and understand the external and internal components of the strategic management process; define and explain various alternative strategies that help companies create a sustainable competitive advantage; understand and explain the five main choices of entry mode that are available to organisations when considering entry into a foreign market, suggest an entry mode that is relevant to Standard Bank and explain the pros and cons of each entry mode; and understand how a company can offer or phase in its service offerings.

This case situates Sola David-Borha, CEO for the Africa Region at the Standard Bank Group, in April 2018, considering whether and how to expand into personal and business banking in Cote d’Ivoire – a country that Standard Bank had just re-entered, having exited there in 2003 because of the civil war. The bank has operations in 20 sub-Saharan African countries and its growth strategy is focussed on Africa. This strategy is reflected in its slogan: “Africa is our home. We drive her growth”. David-Borha has a number of questions on her mind. These include: can the bank offer financial services that will meet the needs of the Ivorian people, how can the bank expand into personal a business banking – indeed is rapid expansion into this sector the right decision for now?

Advanced/graduate courses in strategic management and international business.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.

1. Maria Jarlstrom, Essi Saru, and Sinikka Vanhala, “Sustainable Human Resource Management With Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, (2008): 703–724. 2. Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell, and Gregory J., “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102, (2011): 357–378. 3. Mick Marchington, Fang Lee Cooke, and Gail Hebson. “Human Resource Management Across Organizational Boundaries,” Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, (2009): 460–477.

This secondary source case is based mainly on three documents: the 20-page report by a labor union, Unite Here, titled “One Job Should Be Enough: Inequality at Starbucks”; and two reports by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Covington & Burlington, LLP.

In February 2020, Unite Here, a labor union, released a damming report about employment practices at the airport Starbucks stores operated by licensee, HMSHost. Among other charges, the report identified several instances of racial and gender discrimination that HMSHost dismissed as a ploy by a union intent on organizing its employees. The adverse publicity, however, put Starbucks Corporation in the spotlight because of the company’s publicly stated commitment to workplace equality. The recently hired Nzinga Shaw, the company’s first-ever Global Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer, had to address the issue at HMSHost lest it adversely affect Starbucks’ reputation as a progressive employer.

The case is best suited for a graduate or undergraduate course in human resource management or labor relations. As diversity is typically covered in the first third of such courses, the ideal placement of this case would be in the early part of the course. As Starbucks is a well-known name, and it is very likely that students have had their own experience with Starbucks, as either a customer or an employee, the case is likely to draw their interest.

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

In 2007 Conseco's CEO, C. James Prieur, faced a complicated set of problems with his company's long-term care (LTC) insurance subsidiary, Conseco Senior Health Insurance (CSHI). CSHI faced the threat of congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, triggered by an unflattering New York Times article alleging that CSHI had an unusually large number of customer complaints and was denying legitimate claims. This threat came in addition to broader systemic problems, including the fact that the entire LTC industry was barely profitable. What little profitability existed was dependent on the goodwill of state insurance regulators, to whom the industry was highly beholden for approvals of rate increases to keep it afloat. Furthermore, CSHI had unique strategic challenges that could not be ignored: First, the expense of administering CSHI's uniquely heterogeneous set of policies put it at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the industry and made rate increases especially necessary. Second, state regulators were negatively predisposed toward Conseco because of its notorious reputation and thus were often unwilling to grant rate increases. Finally, CSHI was dependent on capital infusions totaling more than $1 billion from its parent company, Conseco, for which Conseco had received no dividends in return. Faced with pressure from Conseco shareholders and the looming congressional investigations, what should Prieur do? Students will discuss the available options in the context of a long-term relationship between Conseco and state insurance regulators. Prieur's solution to this problem proved to be innovative for the industry and to have far-reaching consequences for CSHI's corporate structure.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to: evaluate the impact of a regulatory environment on business strategy; and assess the pros and cons of various market strategies as well as recommend important non-market strategies for a firm in crisis in a highly regulated industry.

Describes the history of the tobacco industry and its emergence as an extremely effective marketer and non-market strategist. After years of success, both publicly and politically, the leaders of the tobacco industry are faced with mounting political pressure and the financial threat of litigation from class-action lawsuits. The leaders face an industry-wide strategic decision of whether to acquiesce to government demands in exchange for immunity, focus on judicial success, or develop a new course of action.

To evaluate the formulation and implementation of non-market strategies in the context of regulatory, legislative, and legal institutions. To understand how various aspects of the non-market environment interact and how these environments not only change over time, but change market competition within an industry. Further, to formulate and decide between firm-specific and industry-wide strategies. Finally, to appreciate and reflect upon the potential conflict between non-market strategies and ethical concerns.

Determine when to resolve conflict through arbitration and when to resolve conflict through the court system. Reflect upon the types of organizational misconduct and determine what behaviors constitute organizational misconduct. Argue whether the behaviors that constitute organizational misconduct are universal or may vary according to the context. Analyze whether actions that might be considered misconduct might be acceptable in certain situations and contexts. Build additional definitions of organizational misconduct that might pertain to non-Western, developed country contexts. Analyze how media and popular opinion might influence perceptions of organizational misconduct.

Carlos Mattos (he/him/his) was the founder/president/CEO of Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. from 1992 to 2015. He and his company introduced the Hyundai brand to the Colombian market and made it one of the best-selling automobile brands in the nation. When the company began experiencing losses, Hyundai headquarters terminated the contract and awarded the distribution to an Ecuadorian firm.The contract between Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. and Hyundai Motor Company stipulates that arbitration is the appropriate dispute mechanism. However, Mattos contemplates whether arbitration is his best option or if he should take Hyundai Motor Company to court. He also contemplates suing the Ecuadorian firm for unfair competition.As students analyze Mattos’ decision, they will determine whether the actions of the any of the parties might be considered organizational misconduct. This case is not about assigning blame. It is not about deciphering whether anyone is guilty. Instead, the case is designed to promote critical thinking about the concept of organizational misconduct. Most literature and understanding of organizational misconduct are from a Western, developed country point of view. In this case, there are three key actors, all from emerging markets. Each may have participated in some sort of misconduct, depending on how the term is defined.

This case is appropriate for advanced, undergraduate or master's level international business students in classes such as international management, intercultural management, international negotiation or business ethics.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International Business.

Diplomatic and consular policies; legal aspects of international relations and Asia regional scenario.

Undergraduate.

In April 2012, high-level officials from China and the USA were about to meet in Beijing in the framework of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue, organized on a yearly basis. The event was always delicate, due to the ambiguous relationship existing between the two countries, which were at the same time rivals and dependent on one another. That time, the tension previous to the meeting increased significantly: a Chinese human rights activist had just sought and obtained diplomatic protection in the US Embassy in Beijing, thus creating an embarrassing situation for both States' foreign departments […] How could they possibly solve this contentious issue without affecting their already sensitive relationship?

Analytical: to be aware of the political nature of the current Chinese Government; to realize the concrete and practical implications of an Embassy's special status; to balance two contradictory objectives, in a specific situation where none of them can be fully discarded; to contrast and try to combine long-term goals (in this case, to maintain a functioning relationship between two main world powers) with short-term objectives (in this case, how to deal with a Chinese activist that required protection against his own country's security forces); to find a modus vivendi (conciliation) between values and interests; to get convinced that certain kinds of negotiations cannot be conceived through a “win or lose” approach: in this case, the only way out must be respectful of the two parties' core interests; and to take into account that image preservation (“face-saving”) must be included within any country's objectives in any situation involving diplomatic means. Conceptual: the purpose is to familiarize the students with specific concepts, such as: best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), which is to be mentioned as part of the discussion (it is not included in the case study itself); interdependence; (purported) Group of Two; asylum and refuge; Immunity; and sending state/receiving state.

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

International Business, Ethics, International Legal Issues/Law, Environmental Management.

Upper-level undergraduates and graduate students. The case is appropriate for courses in International Law, Ethics, International Business and Strategy.

This case is inspired by current ethical, legal, social and environmental issues that have plagued the multinational mining industry in frontier markets. The case focuses on a multitude of legal, ethical and strategic issues involving the multinational mining industry. This case describes a hypothetical assignment facing an operations manager at the fictional Minera, Inc. The assignment revolves around several dilemmas a manager must confront as he attempts to secure valuable mining licenses from the Mongolian Government while simultaneously attempting to harmonize seemingly detrimental operating practices with the organizations' stated beliefs. The case provides detailed background information on the social, economic and political climate in Mongolia, as well as the applicable laws, ethical frameworks and competitive market considerations facing multinational mining organizations.

This case will help students understand the complexity of international business in frontier markets; identify key international legal issues such as the foreign corrupt practices act; and recognize ethical issues and formulate economically, strategically, ethically and legally sound courses of action in complex environments.

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 expected learning outcomes are: to clarify the meaning of resilience and its attributes. To explore the influence of the leader on the development of organizational resilience. To identify critical decisions for the recovery of a business after an external event such as the earthquake that took place on September 19th in Mexico City. To point out the stages for the development of organizational resilience, in the short, and long term: anticipation, coping and adaptation. To clarify the actions that could be taken to prepare an organization for an extreme event or respond to a large-scale crisis.

The case is framed within the context of the September 19, 2017 earthquake in Mexico City. ProActive Strategies’ offices collapsed, causing some people to lose their lives and others to be injured. The protagonist needed to decide if the organization could survive and recover or needed to be closed after the earthquake. After ProActive Strategies survived and recovered, it was possible to identify the main stages to develop organizational resilience in this organization: anticipation, coping and adaptation. Also, the paper provides empirical evidence about how organizational resilience is anchored in the attributes at individual and community levels that include human, economic, social and political capitals, enhanced by technological capital. Furthermore, the enablers of resilience add external entities and the ecosystem at a macro-level, considering political, social and economic aspects of the context.

The study level and expertise required to address this case is medium. The richness of the discussion from the perspective of the students is related to the possibility to empathize with the protagonist and the different actors involved and to build on previous experience with crisis management to observe the potential risks and courses of action. Moreover, the professor also requires taking a neutral position to balance the requirements from a humanitarian perspective, with the business needs.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human resource management.