Search results

The purpose of this case is to introduce the topic of socially responsible investing from both the investor and investee perspectives. The students will walk away with an understanding of 1) how to evaluate a portfolio company on a social/environmental mission and on traditional financial criteria, and 2) what considerations should be top of mind for a social venture considering accepting an equity investment. Wes Selke is a portfolio manager at Good Capital, an investment fund created to increase the flow of capital to innovative nonprofit and for-profit social ventures that are using market-based solutions to solve problems of poverty, illiteracy, and inequality. In 2007, Good Capital is ready to make its first growth equity investment in a for-profit social enterprise and Selke is considering Better World Books as the firm's primary target. Selke must evaluate whether or not the firm is a financially sound investment and if its social and environmental missions can be preserved upon a liquidation event. If Good Capital proceeds with the investment, Selke must also rework some of Better World Books' current procedures, including fine-tuning the philanthropic giving strategy that is the main component of its social mission.

To expose students to both the investor and investee perspectives in social venture capital (SVC) deal ensuring they understand the criteria that must be considered when evaluating a potential investment in a for-profit social enterprise (investor perspective) and know what questions to ask both the investor and your organization before accepting an equity investment (investee perspective). To emphasize the importance of structuring a deal so that the social/environmental mission of a portfolio company is preserved upon exit.

The purpose of this case is to introduce the topic of socially responsible investing from both the investor and investee perspective. The students will walk away with an understanding of: 1) how to evaluate a portfolio company on a social/environmental mission as well as on traditional financial criteria and 2) what considerations should be top of mind for a social venture considering accepting an equity investment. Wes Selke is a portfolio manager at Good Capital, an investment fund created to increase the flow of capital to innovative non- and for-profit social ventures that are using market-based solutions to solve problems of poverty, illiteracy, and inequality. In 2007, Good Capital is ready to make its first growth equity investment in a for-profit social enterprise and Selke is considering Better World Books as the firm's primary target. Selke must evaluate whether or not the firm is a financially sound investment, and if its social and environmental mission can be preserved upon a liquidation event. If Good Capital proceeds with the investment, Selke must also rework some of Better World Books' current procedures, which includes fine-tuning the philanthropic giving strategy that is the main component of its social mission.

To expose students to both the investor and investee perspectives in social venture capital (SVC) deal ensuring they understand the criteria that must be considered when evaluating a potential investment in a for-profit social enterprise (investor perspective) and know what questions to ask both the investor and your organization before accepting an equity investment (investee perspective). To emphasize the importance of structuring a deal so that the social/environmental mission of a portfolio company is preserved upon exit.

The case traces the development of Lululemon Athletica (Lulu) from founder Chip Wilson's first post-yoga euphoria in 1997 through the sale of all his shares in 2015. Officially founded in 1998, Lulu was built on the foundation of its “miracle” figure-enhancing yoga pants made from a proprietary stretch fiber. The case outlines Wilson's early experience in technical performance wear, which gave him the expertise needed to launch the Lululemon brand with its premium-priced, fashion-designed product line targeted at upscale women. The case also highlights the retailing and promotion approach that drove Lulu's first decade of success. The snapshot of how the Lulu brand cult was born and diffused provides the backdrop for assessing whether the brand has already hit its peak or whether it can sustain the explosive growth that effectively created the athleisure category. To aid in this determination, the case presents two competitors as comparative foils (Under Armour and Athleta) to contextualize Lulu's growth prospects.

The Lululemon case highlights the importance of the competitive frame of reference when positioning a brand and describes how this may differ for the three competitors. The case also allows for a discussion of the challenges of maintaining the congruence of a retail brand with a diverse product line. This struggle is unique to retailers who must fit ever-varied product assortments (not just a single product line) under the umbrella of a single brand proposition, and is particularly relevant to vertically integrated brands such as Lululemon.