Search results

Entrepreneurship; Social entrepreneurship.

Graduate level.

This paper, The Brownies & Downies case study, aims to examine a social enterprise that provides employment, training and job placements for people with intellectual disability within a trendy artisanal coffee shop in Cape Town, South Africa. The business is based on a similar establishment (same name) in The Netherlands and was brought to Cape Town by Wendy Vermeulen, a Dutch national who completed a social development internship in Cape Town. The case is located within the field of social enterprise with a particular focus on the tension between purpose and profit and the pressure and challenges of replication, growth and scale/expansion. The protagonist in the case is Wade Schultz, Wendy’s business partner, who is grappling with how to not only remain true to the social purpose of the business but also turn a profit in the pressured and competitive coffee industry. He is further challenged by deciding whether to expand the existing training business into other sectors or seek a replication model in other South African cities as a means of growing revenue and increasing the social impact.

The key learning from this case study are as follows: First, intellectual disability is a hidden form of disability, often misunderstood and subject to prejudice and discriminatory hiring practices. Intellectual disability exists on a scale – some individuals are able to work outside of pretexted or sheltered workspaces. Greater effort is required within open workplaces to sensitive staff to working with/alongside intellectually disabled people. This case illustrates a social enterprise model that seeks to bridge the gap between sheltered workspaces and open workspaces. Second, most social enterprises grapple with the tension between profit and purpose; this case presents a company that is living this dilemma. The importance of remaining true to purpose needs to be balanced carefully against becoming economically self-sufficient; however, the pursuit of profits should not happen at the cost of social mission. Alternate business models are a mechanism to building revenue to support the social objective.

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: 3: Entrepreneurship.

This case requires students to evaluate alternative dual-share-class corporate structures that allow companies and entrepreneurs to pursue profit with purpose. The case explores Impact Makers, an IT consulting company based in Richmond, Virginia. While original founders of the firm hold all voting rights, the cash flow rights belong to two nonprofits setting the stage for a Newman's Own model of management consulting. The case discusses whether and how the alternative corporate structure aids the firm's overall strategy to attract top-quality employees, pay them competitive salaries, and provide superior service to its clients while donating 100% of its lifetime value to charitable causes, largely through partnerships with various nonprofit organizations. More importantly, the case asks students to evaluate how such a dual-share-class and dual-purpose company can raise capital to fund continued growth.

The case opens with CEO Michael Pirron reminding himself of all the questions he had run through to execute a strategy to further grow Impact Makers' consulting business both through expanding a menu of services and through conquering new geographical markets. To do either, or both, the company needed a cash infusion. Internal cash was limited, as up to 40% of it flowed to charitable partners, demonstrating Impact Makers' commitment to its mission. Raising debt for a company without fixed assets was challenging and time consuming. Complicating it all was that being structured as a nonstock corporation rendered equity raising difficult. Could Impact Makers raise money to grow and stay true to community values at the same time?

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.

Although Google had a stellar performance in Web search, many of its other services, such as Google Video, were less successful. This case describes how YouTube came to dominate the video market for user-generated content (UGC), while Google Video tried various entry strategies and ultimately failed, ending with the acquisition of YouTube. It also reviews the various competitors in the UGC market, chronicles the entry of established and new players in the area of professionally generated content (PGC), and outlines the key challenges related to monetizing the acquisition of YouTube for Google.

The case discusses when and how to enter winner-take-all markets characterized by very strong network externalities. It focuses on the strategies of new entrants vs. those of incumbents in adjacent industries that seek to leverage their resources and skills. Further, it sheds light on how new industries are created, how convergence is changing competitive forces, how important it is to be a first or late mover in new markets, and how successful entrants may struggle to achieve profitability.