Search results

The case delves into supply, demand, price gouging, hoarding and capabilities of the firm. The theories/concepts and a short overview are covered below. These theories and concepts are then referenced as appropriate in the “Answers to Discussion Questions” section as follows: Supply Demand Theory; Price Gouging, Speculation and Hoarding; Resources, Capabilities and Activities; Friedman’s and Porter’s view of goals of a firm; Corporate Social Responsibility.

The case was motivated after a discussion with Mr Matthew Roberts, who is the Chief Operating Officer of SPR Industries. Several subsequent interviews were conducted with Matt. Matt also became the chief protagonist of the case. Matt provided multiple quotes and anecdotes. The protagonist Matt and the focal organization (SPR Industries) are disguised. The financial figures have also been disguised using a multiplier. However, the material facts of the case are authentic.

This case sheds light on the impact of the COVID pandemic on a small business in the personal protective equipment industry. The students will get an understanding of the supply and demand forces in a market. Furthermore, the case bears out how unpredictable situations such as the pandemic lead to speculation and price gouging opportunities but not in all products affected by it. The case explores the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of firms regarding price gouging in their products. Students will also get an appreciation of how an industry and its participants change in response to such black swan events as the COVID pandemic. Finally, the case presents a small enterprise’s decision choices â?? Should they maintain the status quo, become a sub-broker or become a wholesaler.

This case is designed to target undergraduate students of strategic management or entrepreneurship. It could be appropriate for upper level courses such as Strategic Management, Small Business Management and maybe even Family Business Management. It could be taught in the latter half of the course after the basic concepts have been covered. This case could bring together many of the concepts into a real-life setting.

The concept of “price gouging” during times of emergency, such as in the aftermath of Katrina, often evokes quite an emotional and reactive response from people who are outraged that stores and companies would increase their prices during a time of emergency. The problem is that people do not realize that, in times of emergency, the market price they knew before is no longer adequate. Government intervention is not the answer to this “problem.” The purpose of this paper is to explore basic concepts of economics, to glean a better perspective of the justification for raising prices during times of emergency, as well as what would happen if there were not laws preventing this very necessary practice.

The paper addresses some “basic concepts” of economics and applies them to emergency situations, preeminently the dire plight of New Orleans and the Gulf coast after Katrina.

The paper finds that a government passes legislation preventing price gouging based on the implicit premise that it can allocate resources more efficiently than the market. By doing so, it alleges that it knows what the people want better than entrepreneurs who sink or swim based on their ability to anticipate matters of this sort. The paper voices the view that government regulation is nothing short of a disaster as far as satisfying customers is concerned.

The paper is of value in offering the forthright view that during times of disaster, prices must be allowed to adjust as a signal to producers and consumers alike. Consumers will utilize less of these goods, and producers will increase their output. As the supply adjusts following the price increase, goods and services will get to those who want them the most and are willing to pay for them. The paper posits the view that this will undoubtedly be a more effective way to distribute supplies to hurricane victims – price controls must be repealed, and the free market must be allowed to work via the beneficent invisible hand, not by the stultifying hands of the bureaucrats and politicians.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between beliefs and economic policy in the context of gasoline prices following Hurricane Katrina.

The paper applies three contributions – by North, Caplan and Higgs – to the question of gasoline pricing policy; and surveys public opinion regarding interference with prices.

The paper identifies evidence of “anti‐market bias” in polling data, press releases, and legislation, and argues that the uncertainty emanating from statutes restricting “price gouging” may reduce investment in the provision of “necessary goods and services” after natural disasters.

The paper is of value in offering evidence of anti‐market and anti‐foreign bias among what might be called political first responders to Hurricane Katrina, and posits the view that interference with prices compounded the shortages facing the Gulf coast or any other disaster‐stricken area.

This case was created based on secondary sources available in the public domain (i.e. news articles). This case has been taught in an undergraduate course of principles of management under the chapter on ethics.

When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, people panicked and rushed to purchase essential products such as hand sanitizers, antibacterial soaps, disinfectant wipes and face masks. The images of a panicked public inspired the brothers Matt and Noah Colvin who amassed and hoarded stockpiles of these essential products to make immense profit. They claimed that their trade approach was legitimate. Yet by an ironic twist of fate, their unorthodox acts were revealed in the media and consequences came in threes: the public vilified the hoarders, the online marketplaces kicked them out and the authorities opened an investigation about alleged price-gouging practices.

This case study may be used in classroom discussions on the concepts of hoarding and price gouging in the following academic programs: bachelor’s in business administration, master of science in business administration and MBA programs. This case study may be used in the following academic courses: ethics in business, responsible management, fundamental of management and organizational behavior.

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of industry specialization on the absorption and competitive pricing (or lack thereof) of audits of large Andersen clients (S&P 1500 companies) who switched to the remaining Big 4 international accounting firms in 2002 due to the demise of Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen). Did the audit clients pay a premium or discount in audit fees to their new auditor who specialized in their industry?

Ordinary least squares regression is used to test hypothesis of a positive association between industry specialization and audit fees charged to former Andersen's audit clients in 2002 following Andersen's demise. This study provides more control over size effects by design. Test variables are constructed based on national market share of audit fees within an industry. Logistic regression is used to examine the likelihood of choosing new auditor that is an industry specialist.

Results support hypothesis, consistent with auditor differentiation explanation. Proportion of clients that had engaged an industry specialist in 2001 increased from 38 percent (84 clients) to 48 percent (105 clients) in 2002. No evidence of price‐gouging in 2002 although clients who aligned with industry specialist paid a 23.2 percent premium in audit fees. Large clients lost bargaining power to negotiate lower fees. Findings are robust to the inclusion of additional alternative measures of company size.

Results of logistic regression analysis imply that large audit clients with former auditor of tarnished reputation, long auditor tenure and high leverage are more likely to switch to an industry specialist to possibly signal audit/financial reporting quality. Large sample companies may limit the ability to generalize findings to smaller companies.

Mandatory audit firm rotation (currently being debated in the profession) will have costly effect on the pricing of Big 4 audits for companies wanting to signal audit and financial reporting quality to affect market perception, and large companies would likely lose their ability to bargain for lower audit fees.

The paper focus on the alignment of Andersen clients and impact on audit fees with Big 4 industry specialists resulting from the sudden increase in audit market concentration. Prior to Andersen's collapse, evidence on the association of audit fees premium and industry specialists was mixed, and little attention has been given to the influence of auditor industry specialization on both audit fees and alignment of former Andersen clients with a Big 4 specialist. This paper fills that void.

Purpose – Everyday human behavior is complicated and difficult to understand. When a disaster event is factored in, human behavior becomes even more complicated. Much like during routine times where resources are unequally distributed, so too are the impacts of a disaster. That is, people are more and less vulnerable to disaster and the damage a disaster inflicts has more to do with the social context (type of housing, level of urbanization, average level of education) of the impacted community. Part of the social context of a community that is not considered part of vulnerability analysis is rates of crime. Indeed, there is reliable evidence that demonstrates lawlessness and crime do not happen after “typical” disasters (e.g., see Quarantelli, 2005). However, we are beginning to see antisocial or conflict behavior, such as looting, price gouging, and violence, especially in more recent events like Hurricanes Hugo and Katrina.

Design/methodology/approach – Using the case studies of Hurricanes Hugo and Katrina, this chapter applies conflict and structural strain theories to lawlessness post-disaster, and makes call to consider these theories as part of disaster studies.

Findings – There are emerging patterns of lawlessness that are happening after contemporary disaster events.

Value of the paper – Considerable research posits that people, for the most part, act in consensus following a typical disaster event. However, current events like Hurricane Katrina are by no means typical, and, in fact, trigger new typologies for understanding acute crisis events. These new events are showing us that what have traditionally been called disaster myths may be becoming more of a reality than we once thought. Therefore, criminology of disaster is important to develop further. Little research does this, outside of Harper and Frailing (2010).

Purpose – This study explores legal justifications for applying an enhanced criminal sanction to wrongs committed before, during, and after disasters.

Design/methodology/approach – This study uses recent social science evidence to evaluate the need for criminal statutes covering looting, price gouging, and other disaster-related offenses. Further, this study considers a broader historical context, identifying intersections of disaster crime and the common law's treatment of riots and public disorder.

Findings – Although individual disaster victims and communities are vulnerable to criminal harm, and this vulnerability often appears to motivate the punishment of disaster-related crimes, it is not the only or even the strongest justification available. As an alternative approach, one could focus on the public dimension of the harm – disaster-related crimes are particularly pernicious because they threaten to undermine the legitimate governing authority of the state.

Originality/value of paper – The public-order thesis yokes current legal doctrine to longstanding common law themes and, in so doing, departs from conventional justifications for the enhanced punishment of disaster-related crime. The critical perspective offered here could be extended to criminal penalty enhancements more generally. Moreover, because the rationale for identifying and punishing wrongful conduct is the fundamental question of criminal law, even a modest reassessment has potentially far-reaching implications.

Trust in corporate governance is at an all time low due to well‐documented corporate scandals such as Enron, Martha Stewart and excessive CEO compensation practices, to mention but a few. Yet relatively little is known about how companies can repair trust once a trust violation has occurred. Recent research in crisis communication management suggests that an appropriate response depends on the situation or type of crisis. This study seeks to investigate the role of violation type (intentional harm v. harm due to external cause) and communication response (apology v. denial) on consumer trust, attitudes towards the service provider and behavioral intent.

A 2 (violation type: intentional harm v. external cause) × 2 (communication response: apology v. denial) between‐subjects design was employed. Alleged price gouging by a Louisiana hotel in the aftermath of Katrina served as the study context. Subjects were asked to read a hypothetical newspaper article in which the trust violation was framed as being either intentional (The General Manager (GM) intentionally increased room rates by 60 percent following the hurricane) or caused by a computer malfunction (the revenue management program automatically hiked up the prices due to increased demand). The GM was then reported either to deny the allegation or to admit responsibility and to apologize for the incident.

The results of this experimental study indicate that denials are ineffective in consumer settings and that publicly apologizing for the event can somewhat mitigate the negative impact of PR disasters. Offering a causal explanation for the event is also important in order to avoid highly damaging intentional harm attributions.

Two streams of literature, crisis communication management and trust repair, are combined to help managers develop effective PR strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) into crime-fighting and present new criminal landscapes in the Western Balkans Six (WB6) (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia) at the beginning of the pandemic crisis.

The paper builds on the content analysis of legal acts, strategic documents, academic articles, media reporting, official documents, four semi-structured interviews with civil society organisations, two consultations with police officers and two consultations with civil society organisations.

In the first nine weeks of the spread of COVID-19, the WB6 experienced a small rise in the price of marijuana. The same applied to stimulant drugs like ecstasy and amphetamines. However, very little heroin was available. Prices of protective face masks, disinfectants and medicinal alcohol skyrocketed due to attempts at price gouging. There were cases of scams using mobile and digital technologies, as well as burglaries of newspaper or cigarette kiosks, shops, pharmacies and exchange offices. It was difficult to determine whether the smuggling of and trafficking in human beings experienced a decline or increase. No cases of sexual exploitation for providing online services were noted, although the number of calls made to organisations that assist in the area of human trafficking increased. People with drug and alcohol problems, persons living with HIV, those susceptible to stress, citizens with mental health problems, pensioners, the poor, the homeless and recently released prisoners were the biggest potential victims of crime at the onset of the crisis brought by the pandemic.

The research findings are limited to specific forms of crime (illicit drug trade, economic crime, fraud, scams, theft, smuggling of and trafficking in human beings) in the WB6 and based on findings from four interviews and four consultations, together with available secondary data.

This is the first overview of criminal activities occurring in the WB6 during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.