Search results

The learning outcomes of this study are to identify and discuss ways in which energy consumption in a residential educational institute can be reduced by improving demand-side energy management for sustainable development; summarise the challenges that an institute faces in transitioning to a more environmentally friendly mode of operations concerning energy management; illustrate the difference between operating expense and capital expenditure methods used for solar rooftop projects from the perspective of Goa Institute of Management (GIM); and analyse different project proposals for solar rooftop power generation energy using capital budgeting techniques.

Dr Ajit Parulekar, director at GIM, was evaluating the steps taken over the past few years for sustainable energy management to understand their impact and consider ways in which to take the environmental sustainability agenda forward. One of the projects that he was considering was the rooftop solar power plant. GIM had received proposals from several different vendors and evaluated three proposals out of these. He needed to decide on the capacity of the rooftop solar power generation and the type of contract that he should get into for the implementation of the project. This case study describes the differences and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of all the mentioned models with respect to GIM.

This case study is suitable for post-graduate level management students, as well as for undergraduate-level finance and management students.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS4: Environmental management.

This case is about “Red”, a cross-border e-commerce platform developed from a community which was built to share overseas shopping experience. With sharp insights into the consumption behavior of urban white-collar women and riding on its community e-commerce advantage, “Red”, a cross-border e-commerce startup, pulled in three rounds of financing within just 16 months regardless of increasingly competitive market. On the other hand, well-established platforms such as T-mall International and Joybuy also stepped in, and their involvement will also speed up the industry integration and usher in a reshuffling period. Confronted with the “price war” started by those e-commerce giants, in what ways can “Red” adjust its shopping experience and after-sales services to enhance the brand value and sharpen its edge?

This case is mainly about the development journey of Tujia, a unicorn in China's accommodations-sharing sector, as well as the development status of the sector. On December 1, 2011, Tujia.com—China's first medium- and high-end vacation apartment booking platform—was formally launched, and it announced the first round of capital injection in less than half a year after its launch. It completed D and D+ round of financing on August 3, 2015, securing $300 million with an estimated value exceeding $1 billion. The completion of this financing round meant that Tujia formally entered the $1 billion club composed of “unicorn” Internet companies. In June 2016, it announced the strategic M&A of Mayi; in October 2016, it announced its strategic agreement with Ctrip.com and Qunar.com for the M&A of their apartment and homestay businesses. The completion of these transactions manifested the matrix with the four major platforms Tujia, Mayi, Ctrip, and Qunar. Since then, Tujia has become the absolute pacesetter in China's online accommodations-sharing sector.

Tiffany & Company was the leading U.S. luxury jewelry brand, generating more than $2.6 billion in revenue through 167 retail outlets globally and from catalogue and Internet sales. For nearly 170 years, Tiffany had managed its brand. In February 2007, a hedge fund, Trian Fund Management LP, announced that it had bought a 5.5% stake in Tiffany, and became its largest shareholder. Trian believed that Tiffany was undervalued and stated that it wanted to help the company “improve its earnings per share by addressing various operational and strategic issues.” In response, Tiffany began to consider different actions to increase shareholder value.

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators.

Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion.

Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters.

But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly?

This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos.

Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has been debriefed. The handouts serve as additional decision points for the students if your class time permits.

In 2017, it was a challenge to assess the future of global trade. It was an open question whether the US financial crisis and the recession that it triggered would mark a turning point for the liberal post–World War II world order. If one looked toward Europe, China, Latin America, and Japan, there was a flurry of activity. New trade agreements were being completed and pursued. In Washington, DC, on the other hand, President Donald Trump seemed set on ripping apart and/or renegotiating any trade deal the United States was ever part of.

This case explores Trump's opinions and emerging policy stance on trade, bilateralism, and the global economy, among others. It also gives an overview of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and asks whether the Trump presidency would constitute a major challenge to the WTO and what it stood for in 2017.

T Education is a leading educational science and technology enterprise in China with technology-driven, talent intimacy and quality leadership as the core development objectives. Since its inception, it has been committed to creating better learning experience for children. As the predecessor of T-education, X-education was founded in Beijing in 2003. At first, it mainly provided after-school math counseling for school-age children. Over the past 10 years, its business has been expanding, covering almost every aspect of school-age education. This case studies accounting issues and business ethics challenges that firms may face when they transform from a single (traditional education) line of business to a multiple channel business.

The case study is designed to help students understand how the “growth at all costs” attitude can lead to compromised corporate governance in a start-up leading to disastrous implications for all the stakeholders. This case study aims to make students understand the components of the fraud triangle, the impact of financial fraud on various stakeholders, the role of venture capitalist (VC) investors and the importance of good corporate governance in start-ups. The case study presents an excellent opportunity for students to discuss the consequences of ignoring good governance in the pursuit of growth in a start-up. After analyzing the case study, the students shall be able to explain the concept of the fraud triangle and to be able to identify the motivation, opportunity and rationalization of financial irregularities in a start-up; analyze the impact of financial irregularities on various stakeholders; comprehend the business model of VCs and evaluate its influence on VC-funded start-ups; and appraise the importance of good corporate governance in start-ups.

The case study revolves around the confession of financial irregularities made by one of the cofounders of GoMechanic, a start-up headquartered in Gurugram, India. On January 18, 2023, Amit Bhasin confessed to financial irregularities in the company’s financial statements, leading to laying off 70% of the workforce of the company. GoMechanic had earlier raised close to US$62m [1] from maverick global investors including Sequoia Capital, Tiger Global, Orios Venture Partners and Chiratae Ventures, and was negotiating to raise Series D financing from the Japanese multinational SoftBank with aspirations to be a unicorn (start-up with a valuation of over $1bn). The confession led to a debate about the consequences of the “growth at all cost” culture being followed by start-ups as well as VCs. GoMechanic was not an isolated instance of a lack of governance in the start-ups. The confession had consequences not only for the GoMechanic but for the entire start-up ecosystem of India, which was the third largest in the world. Bhasin stated that the founders take full responsibility for the situation, and they were working on a plan which was most viable under the circumstances. However, it was not going to be easy to regain the confidence of the investors.

The case study is best suited for senior undergraduate- and graduate-level business school students and in executive education programs in courses such as corporate governance and ethics, private equity and entrepreneurial finance.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and finance

The writing of this case study was triggered by the numerous media reports in 2020 that talked about the EU nations losing its solidarity. EU being a very appropriate example of economic, monetary and customs union while teaching theories of economic integration and international relations, the post-pandemic approach of EU leadership to rebuild the crisis-ridden member nations seemed an excellent material for developing a teaching case study.

The case study was written based on secondary data and published information available. Enough desk research was undertaken to build the characterisation of the protagonists and due diligence done to chronologically report all facts of the case as the story developed. It was decided to build the epilogue into the case study so that the case analysis had enough depth.

The case is set in 2020 when the global economy was reeling under the massive impact of a lockdown and the aftermath. The case study examines the model of economic union in international business and the various challenges that governance of an association of nations such as the 27 member EU can throw up. It examines the conflict of interest that can arise among member nations during critical circumstances such as the pandemic and its massive tolls.

EU had established itself as a critical international trade player and had already proven their might as a united entity to the world trade partners, given the fact that they were not only a customs union but also a monetary union. In this scenario when the pandemic threw them into the whirlwind of lockdown-induced crisis, the united front of the mighty EU all but crumbled. As the worst-hit economies of Italy and Spain struggled to pull themselves back to normalcy, EU experienced one of its worst solidarity crises.

EU’s president Angela Merkel and ally French President Emmanuel Macron with support from the EU Council’s President Charles Michel stepped forward to resurrect the badly hit economies. They viewed this as the best opportunity to bring about a united front by coming together at Brussels for a summit when lockdown eased up in July 2020. It was to be a show of unity to jointly bail out the severely affected member nations by grants rather than loans. The summit, however, snowballed into bitter arguments and open bickering between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy members, and they could not agree upon the issue of debt vs aid. The fact that the EU was an agglomeration of 27 nations, which were far from homogenous in socioeconomic status, not to speak of divided political ideologies, only added dimensions to the dispute. Negotiations repeatedly hit roadblocks. Can the EU leaders lead their bitterly divided house to a consensus?

The case is suitable for graduate and post-graduate levels. Management courses where international business studies, international trade blocs and global leadership are part of curriculum can use the case to teach concepts of “Regional economic integration”, “Economic and Political union” and theories of “International relations” and “Negotiation”. It can also be ideally used in an executive management programme on “Global Leadership” to highlight the complexities of “governance of international associations” and “consensus building amidst diversity”.