Search results

This case is designed to enable students to understand the role of women in artificial intelligence (AI); understand the importance of ethics and diversity in the AI field; discuss the ethical issues of AI; study the implications of unethical AI; examine the dark side of corporate-backed AI research and the difficult relationship between corporate interests and AI ethics research; understand the role played by Gebru in promoting diversity and ethics in AI; and explore how Gebru can attract more women researchers in AI and lead the movement toward inclusive and equitable technology.

The case discusses how Timnit Gebru (She), a prominent AI researcher and former co-lead of the Ethical AI research team at Google, is leading the way in promoting diversity, inclusion and ethics in AI. Gebru, one of the most high-profile black women researchers, is an influential voice in the emerging field of ethical AI, which identifies issues based on bias, fairness, and responsibility. Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 after the company asked her to retract a research paper she had co-authored about the pitfalls of large language models and embedded racial and gender bias in AI. While Google maintained that Gebru had resigned, she said she had been fired from her job after she had raised issues of discrimination in the workplace and drawn attention to bias in AI. In early December 2021, a year after being ousted from Google, Gebru launched an independent community-driven AI research organization called Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research (DAIR) to develop ethical AI, counter the influence of Big Tech in research and development of AI and increase the presence and inclusion of black researchers in the field of AI. The case discusses Gebru’s journey in creating DAIR, the goals of the organization and some of the challenges she could face along the way. As Gebru seeks to increase diversity in the field of AI and reduce the negative impacts of bias in the training data used in AI models, the challenges before her would be to develop a sustainable revenue model for DAIR, influence AI policies and practices inside Big Tech companies from the outside, inspire and encourage more women to enter the AI field and build a decentralized base of AI expertise.

This case is meant for MBA students.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CCS 11: Strategy

T Education is a leading educational science and technology enterprise in China with technology-driven, talent intimacy and quality leadership as the core development objectives. Since its inception, it has been committed to creating better learning experience for children. As the predecessor of T-education, X-education was founded in Beijing in 2003. At first, it mainly provided after-school math counseling for school-age children. Over the past 10 years, its business has been expanding, covering almost every aspect of school-age education. This case studies accounting issues and business ethics challenges that firms may face when they transform from a single (traditional education) line of business to a multiple channel business.

This case was developed through secondary sources in response to the environmental concerns being raised in legal actions, company documents, online forums, trade press articles and academic research relative to Li mining practices, a key material in Li-ion batteries. The case focuses on Tesla’s actual and potential response to the environmental and humanitarian concerns being raised with its battery supply chain

Tesla was one of the world’s leading producers of Li-ion batteries which were critical to its EV and battery offerings. Unfortunately, sourcing rare earth metals, such as Co and Li, which are key components in these batteries, raise several environmental and social concerns. This case highlights senior leadership considerations critical to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, including environmental tradeoffs and issue management. The case highlights the complexity of strategic decision-making in innovative and ESG contexts and challenges the students to contextualize the trade-offs behind each decision and the potential impact to associated stakeholders.

Level: Upper undergraduate and masters. Majors: Management; technology & innovation management; environmental science; science, technology & society; supply chain management; business ethics. Courses: Strategic management (social issues in management, strategic management, technological innovation); technology & society; ethics, supply chain management. Time: 60- or 90-minute class session. Supporting texts (depending on course context): Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. Schilling, M. McGraw Hill, 2017. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Grant, R. Wiley, 2017. Society, Ethics & Technology. Winston, M., Edelbach, R. Cengage, 2014. Principles of Supply Chain Management. Wisner, J., Tan, K., Leong, G. Cengage, 2019.

The case uses primary source documents, such as the court cases brought forth by the SEC and US District Attorney, for the specifics about the fraud and secondary sources for further background information about the town and industry. The individuals in the case are not disguised. The authors have no connection to the case.

Thomas Laws was a CPA, a registered investment advisor and a real estate broker. Laws made a poor business investment. Instead of taking the financial hit, Laws orchestrated a complex Ponzi scheme using clients from his CPA practice and embezzling money from an employer, Santa Fe Gold Corporation. Laws’ scheme continued until his employer confronted him about missing funds. Frank Mueller, the CFO of Santa Fe, did not exercise the due diligence necessary until it was too late. Rest’s framework for ethical decision making is used to frame the ethical decisions Mueller can make. The case examines the conflict-of-interest guidance issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and allows students to examine the due diligence and controls needed by employers and prospective investors.

This case is designed for undergraduate accounting students taking Intermediate Accounting I, ACCT 0312 at the authors’ institution, typically junior-level students. It would be appropriate whenever you introduce the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct during an ethics discussion.

The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).

This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.

This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.

This case was developed from both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources were interviews. The secondary sources include legal opinions and journal articles.

In 2012, Scot and his co-owner, both experienced groomers, planned to open their own grooming business. Scott talked with his accountant about the best legal entity for their situation, and the accountant advised Scott that a limited liability company (LLC) would be the best choice. The accountant steered Scott to Legal Zoom, an online legal resource that helps people form business entities, including LLCs. A few years after starting their business, Scott and his co-owner reached an impasse: Scott wanted to expand the business; his co-owner did not. Scott talked with an attorney and learned that the standard form LLC operating agreement from Legal Zoom did not cover this kind of situation. How is an LLC formed? What are the consequences of a flawed LLC formation? What kinds of duties do accountants owe business owners?

This case was written for use in an undergraduate introductory business law course, an introductory accounting course or an accounting ethics course. The focus of the case supports classroom discussion for online and face-to-face instruction regarding business entity formation and fiduciary duties. Educators who use critical thinking in lessons to apply information about the roles of accountants and attorneys working with business owners can use this case to explore and discuss the impact ethical decisions can have on business owner clients.

Through evaluating and examining this case, students will be able to:

• understand what an LLC is and explain how one is formed;

• recognize the consequences of flawed LLC business entity formation; and

• articulate the roles of accountants in the formation of an LLC.

The learning outcomes are as follows: to strike a balance between business growth and keeping the core Gandhian philosophies intact; to evaluate the relevance of Gandhian philosophy in the age of the digital era, especially for the grassroots enterprises; and to identify the leadership characteristics demonstrated by Pabiben from the lens of servant-leadership theory.

The case describes the journey of a grassroots-based rural women entrepreneur, Pabibben, who had created an artisan's enterprise and rural business model based on Gandhian philosophies. The case focuses on whether Gandhian philosophies are still relevant in today's time for business growth. The case appeals to the academic fraternity, budding entrepreneurs, social sector start-ups and practitioners who believe in the inclusive and holistic growth of an individual, community, society and the nation.

The case is about the dilemma of how to grow a business ethically and balance economic and social gain. Pabiben used Gandhian philosophies as a set of values to make decisions and set policies for her business. Pabiben wanted to grow her business and expand her e-commerce portal “Pabiben.com” for other artisans to display, promote and sell their products to the global communities. She had to decide on the following:

1. Should she sell other artisans' products under “Pabiben.com”?

2. Should she allow other artisans to create their own identity on the portal and help the artisans' community grow?

3. Are Gandhian philosophies still relevant in today’s time for business growth?

The case can be used for both undergraduate and postgraduate students to teach entrepreneurship courses, especially social entrepreneurship and rural entrepreneurship. The case can also be used on the subject of corporate social responsibility, business ethics and women leadership. The case explains the concept of values/philosophies-based entrepreneurship and innovations.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship

This case presents some of the entrepreneurial challenges faced by a female leader in the technology sector who conceived a new product based on her passion to help others especially those most disadvantaged.

Upon completion of this case study, students should be able to prepare supply chain and distribution analysis that considers ethics and sustainability, integrate philanthropic efforts as part of an organizational strategy and recognize strategies to promote equity within and beyond an organization.

Connie Stacey (she/her) is an entrepreneur and president of Growing Greener Innovations, an award-winning battery energy storage company based in Alberta, Canada, with a mission to end energy poverty globally. With the emergence of COVID-19 as a global pandemic in 2020, Stacey turned her attention to an innovation called Project Rescue, a ventilator that uses non-identifying patient vitals to track data. It serves as a pandemic early warning system, addressing two key challenges: pandemic data are prone to error, and real-time information is non-existent after the pandemic has spread. This new product was conceived based on her passion to help others, especially those most disadvantaged. This multi-faceted case focuses on the many challenges that Stacey and her team needed to address. The dilemma in this case centres on establishing supply chains amid a pandemic, as well as prioritizing the corporate social responsibility elements of philanthropy and equity within her organization (and beyond).

This case is appropriate for third- or fourth-year undergraduate or graduate-level students.

In addition to “call out boxes” throughout the case and teaching note, additional readings/links/videos are outlined below. (These supplementary materials, “Teaching Tips”, are included in the teaching notes as well.)

CCS 11: Strategy.

In writing this case, the research team used secondary resources such as academic journals, trade magazines and websites to inform and verify the information.

January 7, 2021, was not a good day for Goya Foods CEO Robert Bob Unanue, who has been at the helm of Goya since 2004. On that day, the nine-member board of directors of Goya censured Unanue for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the 2021 United States Presidential election. A day before, on January 6, a mob “trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814” (Hockstein, 2021).

Unanue was considered a follower of former president Trump and has expressed that “the country was […] blessed to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder” (Hawkins, 2020). In January 2021, Unanue appeared on Fox News and said a “ war was coming,” as Joe Biden’s election was “unverified.” These, among other words, motivated the censured by the board of Goya Foods, Inc. (Santana and Isidore, 2021).

Students are asked the following questions for discussion: Did the board of directors of Goya Foods carry its role too far by openly censuring Unanue? Did Unanue go too far by openly expressing subjective opinions and thus influencing how people view the election results? Should he have remained as CEO of Goya Foods after his words on Joe Biden’s election?

One of the authors has taught the case in the Strategic Management course for MBA students. In addition, graduate students of corporate governance, business ethics, social responsibility and leadership, among other classes, will be the target segments for the case.

1. Recognize the effects on brand image and sales when CEOs participate in political arenas and publicly discuss social issues.

2. Understand the dynamics behind ethnic family businesses, such as their governance and conflict resolution approach.

3. Assess the value of the corporate board’s management of corporations.

CCS11: Strategy

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators.

Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion.

Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters.

But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly?

This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos.

Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has been debriefed. The handouts serve as additional decision points for the students if your class time permits.