Search results

This case presents the dilemma of a multinational oil and gas company, ExxonMobil, as it factors in the ethical issues related to the environment and cultural differences in deciding whether to proceed with building a pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, two of the poorest and most corrupt developing countries in West Africa. The many players in this project included the World Bank--which cofinanced the project and put restrictions into place that would hopefully prevent pipeline-related government corruption in both Chad and Cameroon--and many environmental and human rights groups that warned of potential disaster. The case also covers the environmental and social analysis of the areas that would be affected by the pipeline.

This case applies a stakeholder analysis to examine the trade-offs between the firm’s strategy and the interests of different stakeholder groups. A PESTEL analysis supports an evaluation of the firm’s situation. Consumer behavior theories on psychological ownership and territoriality offer a framework for analyzing the conflicts that arise from the inhabitants’ protests.

This case relies on secondary sources, including news reports, social media sites and company websites. This case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in a strategic management course in January 2019 at the University of Cologne, Germany.

In November 2016, Google announced its intentions to rent a building in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin to open a Google Campus, a business incubator for tech start-ups that would offer entrepreneurs support, workshops and access to networks. Following the announcement, dissatisfied local communities organized protests, in which leaders complained that “It is extremely violent and arrogant of this mega-corporation, whose business model is based on mass surveillance and which speculates like crazy, to set up shop here” (Business Times, 2018). Berlin’s Government supported the Google Campus plan; inhabitants rejected it with fierce and persistent protests. In face of this challenge, was it still possible for Google to continue its plans in Berlin?

This case qualifies for use in strategic management classes at undergraduate and MBA levels. Its focus aligns well with stakeholder analyses, PESTEL analyses and business strategy. In addition, for courses on organizational communications or public relations, this case provides a way to explore the relationship between Google and its stakeholders, especially protesters, in detail. Moreover, this case is well suited for consumer research and public policy courses (e.g., transformative consumer research) centered on discussions of territoriality.

The case examines the development and launch of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) based on JUST Capital's socially responsible corporate ranking methodologies. The case provides a market overview of Environment, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) and socially responsible investing (SRI), what has driven growth in those areas worldwide, and several best-practice investment approaches. Following the overview, the case describes the founding and development of JUST Capital, explores JUST Capital's ranking methodologies, and presents the decision point faced by the CEO: requisite selection of one of three strategies in order for JUST Capital to generate “self-sustaining” revenue.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Graduate, undergraduate and executive education.

The Institute of Management Technology, Nagpur, in the year 2013 started the Centre for Corporate Governance to emerge as an academic and research center for the industries in the vicinity of Nagpur and engage industries in CSR activities. On completion of one year of the center, the team responsible for execution of the programs was disappointed with the Centre’s progress. They decided to start an empowerment program with students from a poor village school. The initiative was well received by the school and its students. Now the team is facing the challenge of sustainability and scale up of the initiative.

To understand the concept and motives of CSR; to evaluate how a nonprofit-making entity can contribute to its communities; to explain the nuances of stakeholder engagement; social empowerment and inclusiveness; and student engagement and volunteerism.

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 based on an in-depth interview with Sean Ansett on March 6, 2020 in San Francisco. For a good reference book on the interview method in social science, please see Seidman (2019). Ansett is an alumnus of the Lam Family College of Business at San Francisco State University. A follow-up interview was conducted on December 13, 2021, via Zoom. The case situations are factual, but the names of the luxury brand, the factory and the Tunisian social auditing firm were disguised. Selected video clips of the interviews are available upon request.

In 2010, Sean Ansett, a social auditor with more than 25 years of experience in promoting workers’ rights in the global supply chain, faced a momentous decision. He was hired by a luxury brand company to conduct a social audit of a Tunisian leather goods factory. During his visit to the factory, he observed the troubling signs of child labor and alarming health and safety concerns in the work environment. Should he report the factory’s situation to the local authority? What should he advise his client, the luxury brand company, to do? Ansett realized that this was not a cut-and-dried decision as reporting to the local authority may affect workers adversely if the factory was closed. This case highlights the ethical dilemmas of human rights in the global supply chain. It also raises critical questions for multinational firms regarding what constitutes an ethical brand and how to ensure effective code of conduct implementation.

This case can be used in undergraduate or graduate business courses or curated sessions and seminars related to corporate social responsibility, ethics and social auditing in supply chain management.

The learning outcomes are to understand the definition of public value and the strategic drivers behind public value creation, understand the nature of social innovation in the public sector, identify the critical opportunities and challenges involved in sustaining innovation in the public sector and identify the role that non-profit organizations can play in supporting and sustaining social innovation.

This case puts participants in the shoes of a global health innovator’s leadership team as the organization approaches a funding crisis. The organization, VillageReach, is on a quest to expand across the public health system of Mozambique and experiences a funding dilemma. The case reveals the challenges of working with governments to achieve large-scale, systemic change. It explores the conundrum of using international donor funding to embed new practices in government service delivery. Ultimately, it asks participants to choose between the pursuit of new, small-scale innovative projects and the large-scale rollout of a national programme.

This teaching case is written for courses focused on social entrepreneurship, social innovation and social change. It can also be used in courses focused on non-profit management and public sector innovation. Specifically, the teaching case is suitable for two audiences: social enterprise and non-profit managers focused on strategy, development and operations (the case focuses on an enterprise that relies primarily on donor funding) and health-care managers and administrators. Generally, the case is suitable for undergraduates in their final year of study as well as graduate-level business and public administration courses, including MBA, MPH, MPA, EMBA and Executive Education courses.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

The Case takes place at the headquarters of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. (GWI), one of the leading short line railroads in the United States. The Case revolves around three executives - Mortimer B. Fuller III, Chairman and CEO, Mark Hastings, CFO and Treasurer, and Alan Harris, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Office - and the dilemma over whether to pursue international expansion.

GWI has generally pursued a strategy of diversification through acquisition. However, there are other approaches to diversification, including international expansion. With increasing deregulation and privatization of railroads around the world, GWI and its competitors must weigh the risks of internationalization with the rewards. GWI fears that a failure to move quickly might result in missed opportunities as competitors acquire railroads around the world.

An opportunity has recently arisen in Australia, where the government is selling Australian National Railway. GWI believes Australia might be a good initial foray into the international market given the similarities of the country and its railroad industry to the United States and its railroad industry. The Case asks the question, “Should GWI enter the bidding?”

Fingerhut, based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a direct-marketing company that sells a smorgasbord of consumer goods through an array of specially targeted catalogs. In November 1996, an article in the Star Tribune, a major Minneapolis newspaper, drew attention to a class-action lawsuit pending against Fingerhut that suggests the firm made its profits by exploiting the poor. Several civil rights groups rallied around the suit and submitted amicus curiae in favor of the litigation. The case illustrates issues in ethics and management communication. Discussions focus on the constituencies. Is Fingerhut exploiting its customers or providing them with an affordable method of obtaining valued consumer goods on credit? Do retailers have a duty to offer products at reasonable prices? Are the high interest rates reasonable given the risk? What are the options: pawn shops, rent-to-own? What is the profile of the typical Fingerhut customer? Discussions also focus on the issues communicating to the constituencies. How much damage will the lawsuit do to Fingerhut's image as an ethical, socially conscious company? What communication strategies can the firm employ? Should it react to the lawsuit? What should it tell its employees?