Search results

The objectives of the case study are to provide an overview of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights in Indian context; understand the intellectual property rights implementation and challenges for implementing it in emerging economies; understand what would be the best approach that companies can adopt when the companies face backlash in such circumstances; and explore the scope for redefining the intellectual property rights in the changing global environment.

In December 2021, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) in India revoked the plant variety protection (PVP) certificate granted to PepsiCo India Holding (PHI) for its Lays variety potato (FL-2027, known as FC-5). The FC-5 variety possessed low moisture content which made it suitable for making potato chips. The controversy started with Pepsi suing the small and marginal farmers of Gujarat for alleged patent infringement and cultivating the patented variety. Pepsi’s legal suit against nine marginal potato farmers in Gujarat initiated the dispute over how intellectual property (IP) rights are used to intimidate small, marginal farmers and its infringement of farmers’ rights. But, on the other side, the interesting aspect was how IP infringement could be a setback for the companies that made the capital investment to develop the variety. The case study discusses the backlash Pepsi faced due to this IP rights legal suit and the punitive aspects of IP rights (IPR) law. Moreover, in the context of the global pandemic, the case study helped discuss the need to redefine the intellectual property rights regime keeping in mind global welfare.

The case is intended for use in postgraduate-level management courses in agricultural marketing, agribusiness, international business and economics. This study can help management students understand how IPR is defined, the apparent complexities associated with it and the adverse effect of it on small and marginal farmers in emerging economies.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.

The data for the case is a mix of both primary and secondary data, from the following sources: – personal interviews with the protagonist, Sofana Dahlan; – Tashkeil website; – official documents provided by the company: ■ “Tashkeil – Corporate Brief,” ■ “Saudi National Creative Initiative – Activities Report 2016”; and ■ “Tashkeil Global Company”. – published media sources.

The case outlines the story of Sofana Dahlan (Sofana) (she/her), a social entrepreneur and one of the first few women lawyers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She established Tashkeil as a social enterprise, helping creative entrepreneurs (creatives) with strategic, operational and legal inputs, thus enabling the creative industry in different parts of the Arab world, focussing on Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Her story can be used to inspire students on how a female entrepreneur fought against an extremely restrictive social and cultural environment and achieved her goals. It helps them to understand the challenges faced by women in the context of the Arab world and the key attributes required for them to succeed as an entrepreneur, especially in the context of certain social and cultural barriers. It also helps to understand the importance of resilience in entrepreneurs and to discuss how entrepreneurs can become more resilient.

The case can be used mainly in undergraduate Business Management Programs in courses such as Entrepreneurship, with specific reference to Women Entrepreneurship. The case would be a good fit for courses on Social Entrepreneurship and Creative Businesses.

Workforce diversity is a reality and offers many benefits to business. Nevertheless, managing diversity poses numerous challenges. This case involves religious diversity, focusing on employers' legal duty to accommodate religious practices. In the case, the assembly line at Electrolux's Frigidaire plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota hummed with activity when suddenly a group of Somali workers walked off the line. The Somali employees were new immigrants and introduced cultural and religious customs which were for the most part unfamiliar to management. The employees were Muslim and left the work stations to observe sunset prayers, one of the five daily prayers central to the Islamic faith. The management dilemma presented in the case is balancing the demands of assembly line production with the religious requirements of Muslim workers in a legal and effective manner. There is a substantial epilogue detailing Electrolux response to the situation which can be used as the basis for further class discussion. To help guide this dialogue, a “mini-instructors manual” follows the epilogue.

This case study is built from secondary data such as news articles, regulations and videos. Several drafts of the case study with a teaching note were tested in the classroom setting and shared in a case writing conference. The case was revised based on feedback from students and roundtable discussions from the conference.

Mrs Hsu, the Deputy Director of the National Taxation Bureau’s Nantou County Branch in Taiwan, faced a dilemma in June 2021. One of her employees, Mrs Chiang, had requested to return to work after taking several years of parental leave since August 2017. This long absence had put a strain on colleagues, who either had to cover for her or work with temporary replacements. While Mrs Chiang’s actions were legal and protected by her government employee role, her decision to take another leave immediately after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine raised eyebrows. Her peers accused her of using her frontline worker status to gain early vaccine access and other work benefits. Mrs Hsu, upon reviewing Mrs Chiang’s employment history, pondered her next steps concerning Mrs Chiang’s new leave request.

This case would be appropriate for a course in Human Resource Management, Organizational Behavior or Gender, Family and Work, especially with the topic of Employment Rights/Legal Protections (in HR), and/or Justice and Ethics (in OB).

International Business, Ethics, International Legal Issues/Law, Environmental Management.

Upper-level undergraduates and graduate students. The case is appropriate for courses in International Law, Ethics, International Business and Strategy.

This case is inspired by current ethical, legal, social and environmental issues that have plagued the multinational mining industry in frontier markets. The case focuses on a multitude of legal, ethical and strategic issues involving the multinational mining industry. This case describes a hypothetical assignment facing an operations manager at the fictional Minera, Inc. The assignment revolves around several dilemmas a manager must confront as he attempts to secure valuable mining licenses from the Mongolian Government while simultaneously attempting to harmonize seemingly detrimental operating practices with the organizations' stated beliefs. The case provides detailed background information on the social, economic and political climate in Mongolia, as well as the applicable laws, ethical frameworks and competitive market considerations facing multinational mining organizations.

This case will help students understand the complexity of international business in frontier markets; identify key international legal issues such as the foreign corrupt practices act; and recognize ethical issues and formulate economically, strategically, ethically and legally sound courses of action in complex environments.

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

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows: use advanced frameworks and tools to convey complex ideas related to corporate social responsibility and ethics; apply relevant concepts and theories of ethics and corporate governance to a practical situation while making decisions; demonstrate understanding of the importance of stakeholders when developing socially responsible thinking; and analyze ethical and legal conflicts that need to be considered by employees in situations of whistleblowing.

Sara Khan was a Pakistani-American who had moved to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2015 to pursue her Bachelor’s degree in accounting. After graduation, she started working for a baked products manufacturer, Dough Fresh, which was a business unit of Dubai-based Fresh Foods Co. Three years later, she enjoyed her work in the company that embraced strong ethical values and socially responsible practices. She was recently given the task of delivering a financial statements’, investment projections’ and cost-cutting presentation to the senior management of Dough Fresh. Her performance at completing this task was of critical importance for her obtaining the eagerly awaited promotion to the senior accountant position. One day, while Sara was looking through some files to update the financial statements’ records, she came across a deleted purchase order of poppy seeds that amounted to AED 680,000. While poppy seeds were widely used as ingredients in baked products in other countries, they were illegal in the UAE. After approaching her colleague from the purchasing department, she realized that the purchasing manager, who was the grandson of the chairman, was closely involved in the matter. Moreover, it appeared that poppy seeds were used unwashed, which triggered deleterious health consequences and made them highly dangerous to consume. As Sara spent more time researching about poppy seeds and whistleblowing laws in the UAE, she questioned whether she should divulge this information or keep it for herself. Making this decision was extremely challenging. Because the UAE laws regarding whistleblowing were not comprehensive and constantly evolving, she was not certain whether her identity and reputation would be protected in case she decided to blow the whistle. Even more, she worried immensely about the prospect of her colleagues losing their jobs if this information became public, as many of them needed the money to support their families back home and to finance expensive health-related treatments of their relatives. At the same time, she was also aware that if poppy seeds were consumed by people unknowingly, this could lead to serious and even fatal health consequences. All things considered, Sara was caught between deciding what was the right thing to do.

This case study can be used in a higher level undergraduate business course on Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The case presents a financing dilemma at a fast growing, Brazilian construction company. The growing demand for residential and commercial real estate in Brazil, coupled with the capital intensive nature of the industry generates the need for a considerable external financing. The students are invited to take the perspective of the financial manager and evaluate three financing alternatives – an issue of debentures, a seasoned equity offering, and a capital-raising ADR offering. In their evaluation and final recommendation students need to consider the implications of each of the financing alternatives on firm value, equity risk, cost of capital, financial leverage, issuance costs, and ownership structure. The case also presents a valuable opportunity to discuss the interdependence between the institutional development of an economy and the development of its capital markets.

The case deals with the Supreme Court's decision of August 31, 2012, ordering Sahara to refund Rs. 24,000 crores and interest to SEBI, so as to refund to the real investors. Despite unambiguous orders, Sahara did not comply fully and kept on prolonging the matter using number of pretexts, ultimately resulting in Roy's arrest. The case has been primarily written for easy understanding of facts, principles of corporate governance, and further developments, as mentioned in judgment, which runs into hundreds of pages. It depicts the legal journey of the fight between a company and the financial regulator in the country.