Search results

By reading and understanding this case study, students are expected to: 1.Able to understand and review the impact of unethical practices from accounting perspective; 2.Able to make an analysis of how one unethical act triggers a series of forced unethical acts (ripple effect); 3.Identify the unfair practices as well as be proactive in preventing unfair practices in the business day to day affairs; 4.Able to relate the function of various ratios (current ratio, quick ration, debt to asset ratio, debt to equity ratio etc.) and its impact on the business performance; and 5.Able to apply various lean quality tools, doing the root cause analysis in identifying and solving problems.

T.M. Exports (TME) was an India-based privately owned and operated enterprise. The company had a brilliant employee named Sanjay, who was a 12-year veteran. TME’s Business Intelligence (BI) department at TME head office, Kanpur, India, ostensibly learned on April 8, 2019, from the rumors about a brand-new vehicle dished out to Sanjay by his friend who made fortune worth of millions from certain transactions. To add fuel to the fire, another incident surfaced concerning a warehouse keeper, Mohit, who was also involved in embezzlement in one of the sales offices. On May 16, 2019, BI reported these two incidents to the internal auditor who launched an internal investigation to get to root of this case. Consequently, the company owner, Tariq Mahmood got himself caught up in a dilemma to fire both Sanjay and Mohit only or restructure the organization for better transparency and integrative approach in future. Moreover, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer had the dilemma of keeping high safety stock to maximize service level or keeping conservative safety stock and rely on-spot market-buying if demand spiked. He decided and instructed all the warehouses to keep higher inventories to meet the forecasted demand, considering unexpected spikes in demand witnessed historically. Thus, increase in inventory caused panic in the sales department as demand was sluggish. He, therefore, offered high discounted prices to liquidate the stock. This study integrated the theories of accounting/financial ratio metrics, accounts reconciliation, business ethics and lean tools. It was demonstrated in this case that the irregularities in sales accounting and their inability of reconciliation had a serious impact on business performance. The concept of total reward was also invoked to understand the disruptive and unscrupulous practices.

This case has been particularly focused on undergraduate and postgraduate early-stage-level students pursuing business or commerce program, particularly those specializing in accounting (sales accounting) and human resource management courses.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Data for the case came from public sources, including legal proceedings, court filings, company press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

In June 2020, former Pinterest employees made public charges of gender and racial discrimination. Despite changes implemented by the company, several Pinterest shareholders filed derivative lawsuits charging the company with breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and violating federal securities laws. The case provides an overview of the company’s management, board and stock structures, as well as information on the shareholders who sued the company and their concerns. The case raises substantial questions about management’s and board member’s responsibilities in corporate governance, illustrates how stock structures can be used to impede governance and suggests ways to evaluate activist shareholders.

This case is appropriate for graduate, advanced undergraduate or executive education courses in strategy, corporate governance or strategic human resources that discuss corporate governance, fiduciary responsibilities, designing workplace culture or management responses to shareholders. Instructors can apply two sets of theories and frameworks to this case: theories of corporate governance and Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice or loyalty framework in the context of shareholder activism.

This case on “Corporate governance: a farce at Volkswagen (VW)” is set in September of 2015. The precipitating events, which started with the Emissions scandal and tampering of the technology, unfold a history of threatening organizational culture, deliberate cheating, and failure of good governance. The case presents that though the outgoing CEO took the responsibility for the event but said that he was shocked by the event and stunned that the misconduct of such a scale could occur in the VW Group. Given the roles and responsibilities of board of management and the supervisory board, how could the scandal of such magnitude go unnoticed? Were robust corporate governance practices being not followed at VW?

The case is based on the material available in the public domain, records, press reports, published books, interviews published by key board members of Volkswagen and the company website.

This case can be used for undergraduate senior classes or graduate and executive education level courses in corporate governance and ethical practices. This case will sync best with the topics around Board Composition and size, Board Independence, fiduciary duties of supervisory board, board duality and leadership and its impact on organizational culture.

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

The non-executive Chairman, Chaturvedi, must lead the Board of Directors of ICICI Bank as it deals with the adverse findings by a former Supreme Court judge against Ms. Chanda Kochhar, the former Chief Executive of the Bank. She had not disclosed a conflict of interest regarding a loan to a corporate group that had business dealings with her husband. Months earlier, the Board had exonerated her and also allowed her to retire from the Bank. Could and should the Board now reclassify Kochhar's retirement as ‘Termination for Cause’ and claw back her past bonuses?

The New York Audubon Society (NYCAS), founded in 1979, became the National Audubon's largest chapter, with a city-wide membership of more than 10,000 members. Prior to 1993, NYCAS' services were provided entirely by volunteers working in a committee structure, with the board composed primarily of committee chairmen. The nature of the organization transformed as it grew in size and complexity from focusing on bird conservation to broader environmental advocacy. In 1993, the board undertook a dramatic change and hired an executive director, primarily for fundraising purposes. Discusses fund accounting and nonprofit accounting practices, as well as the NYCAS' experiences dealing with organizational growth, investment management, grant acquisition and use, fundraising, nonprofit status, and financial disclosure.

This case is based on primary archival research. The original reports from MSCI, Sustainalytics and S&P 500 formed the foundation of the case in addition to the 144-page Tesla’s 2021 Impact Report. Secondary sources were used to provide contextual information. All sources are cited as endnotes.

In June 2022, Tesla, Inc., the Austin, Texas-based electric car company faced a number of challenges that called into question its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Questioning the company’s corporate governance practices, SOC Capital, a watchdog organization publicly released a letter that it had sent to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission where it had demanded that the agency sanction the company for not replacing an independent director at its next stockholder meeting. The State of California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment filed a lawsuit alleging various counts of discrimination at Tesla’s manufacturing facility in Fremont, California. S&P Global removed the company from its index of ESG companies. This action had negative consequences for the company’s stock price. Tesla’s board of directors, led by Robyn M. Denholm, had to address Tesla’s overall approach to ESG in light of these challenges.

The case is suitable for an upper-level undergraduate or an MBA course on strategy or strategic management.The issues in the case involve the stakeholder perspective, corporate governance and the purpose of a firm. Instructors face two choices here: using this case early in the course introduces the broader stakeholder perspective early on without addressing it as an afterthought at the very end of the course. The other choice is to use it at the end because most strategy textbooks cover these topics at the back end.

This case examines the ethical issues raised when businesses contract for the military during time of war. Dow Chemical Company was a military contractor during the Vietnam War and the primary producer of Agent Orange - a defoliant used to clear vegetation. Agent Orange has been linked to a number of serious medical conditions in war veterans and Vietnamese civilians. In 2004, Vietnamese citizens filed suit against Dow for illnesses they believe were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Dow thought the issue should have been addressed through political and social policy, while Vietnamese citizens and U.S. Vietnam war veterans believed Dow was ethically responsible. As the case moved through the U.S. judicial system, some of Dow's investors grew uncomfortable with how it was handled. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was left to wonder what his company could have done differently and what they could learn from the Agent Orange episode that might prevent similar problems in the future. This incident appeared to be a relatively distinct case, but in July of 2007 it was reported that the number of private contract employees in Iraq exceeded that of U.S. military personnel. Consequently, it is likely that companies and their stakeholders will have to address similar issues.

The case “Corporate Governance Failure at Ricoh India: Rebuilding Lost Trust” discusses the series of events post disclosure of falsification of the accounts and violation of accounting principles, leading to a loss of INR 11.23bn for the company, eroding over 75 per cent of its market cap (Financial Express, 2016). The case provides an opportunity for students to understand the key components of corporate governance structure and consequences of poor corporate governance. The case highlights the responsibility of the board of directors, audit committee and external auditors and discusses the changes required in the corporate governance structure necessary to ensure that such incidents do not take place. The case also delves into the classic dilemma of degree of control that needs to be exercised by the parent over its subsidiaries and freedom of independence given to the subsidiary board, which is a constant challenge all multinationals face. Such a dilemma often leads to the challenge of creating appropriate corporate governance structures for numerous subsidiaries.

The case is intended for MBA courses on corporate governance, business ethics and also for the strategic management courses in the context of multinational corporations. The case can be used to develop an understanding of the essential of corporate governance with special focus on the role of the board of directors, audit committee and external auditors. The case highlights the consequences and cost of poor corporate governance. The case can also be used for highlighting governance challenges in the parent subsidiary relationship for multinational corporations. The case can be used for executive training purposes on corporate governance and leadership with special focus on business ethics.

This case presents the challenges faced by the newly appointed Chairman Noboru Akahane of Ricoh India. In July 2016, Ricoh India, the Indian arm of Japanese firm Ricoh, admitted that the company’s accounts had been falsified and accounting principles violated, leading to a loss of INR 11.23 bn for the financial year 2016. The minority shareholders were agitating against the board of directors of Ricoh India and were also holding the parent company responsible for not safeguarding their interest. Over a period of 18 months, Ricoh India had been in the eye of a storm that involved delayed reporting of financials, auditor red flags regarding accounting irregularities, a forensic audit, suspension of top officials and a police complaint lodged by Ricoh India against its own officials. Akahane needed to ensure continuity of Ricoh India’s business and also act quickly and decisively to manage the crisis and ensure that these incidents did not recur in the future.

The case provides an opportunity for students to understand the key components of corporate governance structure and consequences of poor corporate governance. More specifically, the case addresses the following objectives: provide an overview of corporate governance structure; highlight the role of board of directors, audit committee and external auditors; appreciate the rationale behind mandatory auditor rotation; appreciate the consequences of poor corporate structure; explore the interrelationship between sustainability reporting and transparency in financial disclosures of a corporation; understand management and governance of subsidiaries by multinational companies; and understand the response to a crisis situation.

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

CSS 11: Strategy.

This case is a role-play exercise intended to give participants an opportunity to experience board meeting dynamics and logistics, determine how to scale a nonprofit for maximum impact, learn about governance best practices, and become generally familiar with nonprofit financial statements, dashboards, and new board member recruitment strategies. There is no right answer or correct outcome to the exercise; the value lies in participants' analysis of the situation, dialogue with one another, and post-meeting self-reflection.