Search results

Over the last two decades, Under Armour (UA) has emerged from being the “underdog” in the sports apparel and footwear industry to being a leader in the industry, with a fierce attention to performance and great skill at picking up-and-coming athletes who emerge as superstars. This case underscores its administrative heritage, competitive strategy, and growth potential as a global player in a highly competitive industry. It addresses the tension between being a performance brand while launching lines for women vs technology applications and conflicts between its growth strategy and macro-economic forces. It highlights areas in which it has succeeded against macro-economic forces and where it has not.

The research relies primarily on secondary sources and countless studies of UA and its major competitors. Primary research is based on databases, videos of UA’s Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and articles from Bloomberg to The Baltimore Sun (UA’s headquarters) on the history, growth and future of UA. It also includes observations and site visits to one of its signature brand house stores as well as intensive research and directed studies with students in the USA and China.

The case can be applied to undergraduate, graduate or executive business classes in: business policy and strategy; general management; (sports) marketing; leadership or organisational behaviour classes.

This case offers the students to see the impact business ethics concepts, including corporate social responsibility, ethical obligation, ethical strategy, alienation, corporate activism, sociopolitical activism, symbolism, transparency, integrity, decoupled organization, opportunism, moral muteness or moral exclusion, etc. Through the student’s own ethical sensitivity, they can then make an informed decision grounded in fundamental ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethics of Care, Virtue Theory, Confucianism, etc.

Data for this case has been gathered entirely from publicly available secondary sources, including online resources, mainstream media reports, biased (opinion-based) media outlets, social media statements from all stakeholder groups (students, business, university) and meeting minutes from campus organizations. None of the named individuals nor entities, in this case, have ever been contacted by the authors.

In Fall 2020, Boise State University contracted a locally owned and operated coffee shop to open a location on-campus. The shop owner was engaged to a police officer who had been permanently injured in an altercation with a dangerous fugitive. For his sacrifice, this police officer was awarded the Medal of Honor from the City of Boise. To support her fiancé, the coffee shop owner displayed a Thin Blue Line flag on the front door of her off-campus location. Students heard of this display and began to voice their objections through administrative and social media channels. The business countered back at claims that they supported racism and ultimately asked to be released from their contract with the university. They closed their on-campus business, having operated the location for less than two months. Media representation of this case created a vocal response both from those who support the business’ use of this imagery and those who support the student’s decision to boycott this business on ethical grounds.

Business ethics: 300–400 level; Business strategy: 300–400 level.

In mid-2013, the Lee family, which owned the Hong Kong based food and health product giant Lee Kum Kee (LKK), struggled with how best to increase involvement of the fifth generation (G5), the children of the company's current fourth-generation (G4) senior executives and governance leaders. Only two of the fourteen G5 members had joined the company, and few had expressed interest in further involvement, including in the multiple learning and development programs the business offered, such as a mentoring program. Many of the G5 cousins had expressed little interest in business careers in general, and none of them currently was serving as an LKK intern. G4 members observed that their children were busy with family obligations, hobbies, and emerging careers outside the business. G5's lack of interest in business and governance roles was part of a growing pattern of low family engagement in general, exhibited by the cancellation of recent family retreats (once an annual tradition) because of apathy and some underlying conflict. A history of splits among past generations of the Lee family regarding business leadership made the engagement issue even more meaningful and critical.

Students will consider the challenge from the point of view of G4 family members David Lee, chairman of the family's Family Office, and his sister, Elizabeth Mok, who ran the Family Learning and Development Center. They and their three siblings saw engaging the next generation as a top priority, one related to key concepts including family-business continuity, generational engagement and empowerment, succession, emotional ownership, and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation.