Search results

1. Maria Jarlstrom, Essi Saru, and Sinikka Vanhala, “Sustainable Human Resource Management With Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, (2008): 703–724. 2. Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell, and Gregory J., “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102, (2011): 357–378. 3. Mick Marchington, Fang Lee Cooke, and Gail Hebson. “Human Resource Management Across Organizational Boundaries,” Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, (2009): 460–477.

This secondary source case is based mainly on three documents: the 20-page report by a labor union, Unite Here, titled “One Job Should Be Enough: Inequality at Starbucks”; and two reports by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Covington & Burlington, LLP.

In February 2020, Unite Here, a labor union, released a damming report about employment practices at the airport Starbucks stores operated by licensee, HMSHost. Among other charges, the report identified several instances of racial and gender discrimination that HMSHost dismissed as a ploy by a union intent on organizing its employees. The adverse publicity, however, put Starbucks Corporation in the spotlight because of the company’s publicly stated commitment to workplace equality. The recently hired Nzinga Shaw, the company’s first-ever Global Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer, had to address the issue at HMSHost lest it adversely affect Starbucks’ reputation as a progressive employer.

The case is best suited for a graduate or undergraduate course in human resource management or labor relations. As diversity is typically covered in the first third of such courses, the ideal placement of this case would be in the early part of the course. As Starbucks is a well-known name, and it is very likely that students have had their own experience with Starbucks, as either a customer or an employee, the case is likely to draw their interest.

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 2014, PZ Wilmar announced a new oil palm business worth $650 million in Cross River State, which would aggressively expand Nigeria’s palm oil production. In July 2015, a year after the plan was announced, a report jointly released by Friends of the Earth US and Environmental Rights Action Nigeria alleged that Wilmar was not complying with Nigerian laws, and accused them of human rights violations, environmental destruction, fraud, and land grabbing. The multifaceted nature of the “Cross River State crisis” permits “close-ups” from different vantage points to analyze the economic, environmental, social, and governance implications of palm oil expansion from a corporate sustainability perspective.

The case was researched utilizing secondary data, all materials are readily available to the public. There is no disguise of any actual person or entity and no relationship between the authors and the organizations or individuals mentioned in the case.

The case is best used at graduate level. It is very well suited for a MBA-level sustainability, business and society, or corporate social responsibility, or business ethics courses.

The case is grounded on the stakeholder theory, yet offering a fresh perspective, leveraging on the uniqueness of the Nigerian context. The authors argue that, while the assessment of the stakeholder salience of environmental groups operating in Nigeria might be different vis-à-vis other countries with sounder institutional environments, the normative question on whether the company should address these claims persists. The authors also draw from the social movements literature and bring forth the idea that the characteristics of the Nigerian context may jeopardize the prospects of success of adversarial tactics such as the issuing of lawsuits and extensive media exposure, which have been deemed effective elsewhere.

This case was developed through secondary sources in response to the environmental concerns being raised in legal actions, company documents, online forums, trade press articles and academic research relative to Li mining practices, a key material in Li-ion batteries. The case focuses on Tesla’s actual and potential response to the environmental and humanitarian concerns being raised with its battery supply chain

Tesla was one of the world’s leading producers of Li-ion batteries which were critical to its EV and battery offerings. Unfortunately, sourcing rare earth metals, such as Co and Li, which are key components in these batteries, raise several environmental and social concerns. This case highlights senior leadership considerations critical to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, including environmental tradeoffs and issue management. The case highlights the complexity of strategic decision-making in innovative and ESG contexts and challenges the students to contextualize the trade-offs behind each decision and the potential impact to associated stakeholders.

Level: Upper undergraduate and masters. Majors: Management; technology & innovation management; environmental science; science, technology & society; supply chain management; business ethics. Courses: Strategic management (social issues in management, strategic management, technological innovation); technology & society; ethics, supply chain management. Time: 60- or 90-minute class session. Supporting texts (depending on course context): Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. Schilling, M. McGraw Hill, 2017. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Grant, R. Wiley, 2017. Society, Ethics & Technology. Winston, M., Edelbach, R. Cengage, 2014. Principles of Supply Chain Management. Wisner, J., Tan, K., Leong, G. Cengage, 2019.

The case was compiled using secondary research, including the following sources, all of which are cited in the References List section of the case: Company annual reports, press releases and company websites and news media, podcasts, video recordings, websites of trade associations and other public domain sources.

This case highlights the decisions facing Moderna, Inc. (Moderna) related to pricing of its COVID-19 vaccine in the European Union (EU) in July of 2021. The CEO, Stéphane Bancel, must balance the need for improving shareholder returns with the call to act responsibly during a global pandemic. Should Moderna raise prices or hold prices constant? What other options might be available to the CEO?

At the authors’ institute, instructors use this case in a second-year marketing elective in pricing at the MBA level. Within the elective, the case enables a discussion on concepts of value realization through pricing and leadership decision strategies. The case may also be used in at the Executive MBA level, in a course of strategic leadership.

Incorporated on February 18, 1959, Oil India Ltd. (OIL) was a leading public sector oil and gas company involved in the exploration, development, production and transportation of crude oil and natural gas in India. Since its inception, OIL had committed itself to being a socially responsible organisation in and around operational areas, particularly the north-eastern state of Assam where 90% of company operations were concentrated. Despite many successes, the “People's Company” continued to be a target for disgruntled local and student communities who frequently created operational hazards for the firm—from sit-ins and blockades to pilfering and disrupting production facilities. No less than 400 organisations, of which 50-60 had been consistently active, were currently in the forefront of demanding something from OIL. Many of these demands were beyond the purview of OIL's CSR policy and focus areas. Additionally, being a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), OIL also faced multiple demands from the government. On February 16, 2019, news arrived that there was yet another blockade in Duliajan, Assam. What should OIL do to address and possibly mitigate operational interruptions?

Ethical leadership and decision-making, engaging and managing multiple conflicting stakeholders.

Utkal Alumina International Limited (UAIL), an ambitious Greenfield project of Hindalco Industries Ltd. faced the challenges of conflicting multiple stakeholders and collective resistance that did not allow UAIL to be commissioned for almost two decades. The case portrayed the journey of a new leader of UAIL in the path of transforming collective resistance to collective collaboration. In the case, the author was introspecting about how far the author could achieve the objective of collective collaborations through stakeholders’ engagements and what would be the next path of the journey.

MBA and executive development programs.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human Resources.

On March 18, 2019, Yuvraj Mehta, head Corporate Brand Management & Communications (CBMC) at Larsen & Toubro (L&T), heard about negative media narratives against L&T, following a high-profile merger and acquisition (M&A) between the company and Mindtree. Some of the allegations against L&T were “hostile takeover” and “destruction of Mindtree's culture.” Mehta was faced with the issue of influencing all stakeholders; turning the tide and changing the narrative from hostile takeover to continuity, growth and profitability; and integrating Mindtree and its employees and culture into L&T. Compared to L&T's previous acquisitions, which were small, and other strategic initiatives, which were mostly organic, Mindtree acquisition was the largest (in value terms) in its history. It was also the most complex as Mindtree promoters aggressively resisted the acquisition, and L&T had to acquire a large number of shares through an open offer. Media speculations began in January 2019 when L&T, the engineering and construction giant, planned to acquire a majority stake in the young IT firm, Mindtree. Soon the reporting changed to aggressive media ranting. Time was at a premium. Mehta knew he would need to begin strategising almost immediately. How should he proceed? What should be his first move?

This teaching case aims to stimulate the debate over the issue of arsenic in rice and prepares students to make a decision by evaluating trade-offs and aligning moral values in a business context.

Rice feeds people in many parts of the world. This teaching case focuses on an entrepreneurial food producer who has strong sustainability values built into his business model. The CEO, Johan Henriksson, of Vegoganic faces a dilemma when a press release by the Swedish National Food Agency potentially threatens the core existence of the business. It challenges the CEO to take a stand on food safety and food security, as well as personal and societal values.

It is a discussion case, developed with undergraduate students in mind, but could be taken to a graduate level by including more advanced literature and questions.

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 8: Marketing

This case uses Uber Technologies Inc. to engage students in a serious conversation about how a firm both affects its stakeholders and is affected by its stakeholders as well as the role of strategic leadership in the amount of emphasis placed on ethical practices. Uber represents a visible high-growth startup that has received considerable positive and negative attention in the media; however, few people know of the extent of its aggressive management approach. Much of the publicity about Uber is both a direct consequence of and a direct consequence for stakeholder relationships. Students are asked to analyze Uber’s approach and offer suggestions for moving forward.

This case was created using secondary data sources. The issues for Uber that led the authors to write this case were not very flattering to Uber, and therefore, the authors decided to use secondary sources. Since Uber and many of its direct competitors were private companies, the authors collected as much financial data as the authors could from publicly available sources. Also, due to the contentious nature of some of the managerial tactics used within Uber, the use of secondary data sources was warranted.

This case was crafted with senior undergraduate students in strategic management as the primary audience, but is also relevant for MBA-level strategy courses as well. This case touches upon core content in the vast majority of undergraduate strategic management courses with a special emphasis on two concepts underrepresented in most strategic management textbooks, stakeholder theory and ethical decision making.

The learning objectives have been prepared in accordance with the Blooms Taxonomy (Engelhart et al., 1984). After completion of this case, students would be able to examine and expand the concept of institutions (i.e. a sport as an institution in this case) and understand how important it is to incorporate them in the policy level decision-making (Knowledge); understand a different form of the social institution (i.e. Jallikattu) and capture its relevance for all the involved stakeholders by taking into consideration the challenges that could stem from their interplay (Application); analyze the interests of various stakeholders and their concerns that add to the complexity of a socially relevant issue (Analysis); and integrate the developments of an event (i.e. Jallikattu) over its timeline and develop an action plan for being prepared or for resolving such exigencies, especially for public policy decision making (Synthesis).

The case is centred on Senaapathy Kangayam Cattle Research Foundation whose primary aim is conservation and breeding of native breeds of cattle. The protagonist of the case, Karthikeya Sivasenapathy, managing trustee of this foundation, has invested significant efforts to create awareness on the importance of Jallikattu. Jallikattu is an ancient Indian sport played in the rural regions of Tamil Nadu state in India and has been in existence for over 5,000 years. This issue has come into limelight due to its initial ban by the Supreme Court of India in 2014 and its subsequent stay on the ban in 2016. While there are several arguments surrounding this controversy, the arguments can be broadly classified under those who support the ban (i.e. oppose Jallikattu) and those who oppose the ban (i.e. support Jallikattu). Due to the involvement of various stakeholders (government supreme court, animal welfare boards and breed saviour groups) with conflicting objectives, the dynamics of decision-making to settle this issue became very complicated, confusing and time-consuming for Karthikeya. By using the lens of institutions and stakeholder theory, the authors explain the issue around Jallikattu in this teaching note. Teaching note also documents the unfolding of events that happened after 12 January 2017 which succeeded in lifting the ban on Jallikattu.

The case is written for undergraduate and graduate-level students pursuing business programmes and for senior management professionals participating in the executive education programmes. The case is suitable for those who are expected to work in an environment where there is a multitude of complex, formal as well as informal institutions. This case can be used to teach the concepts of institutions, the dynamics involved and to give the flavour of the interactions between these different institutions in solving a social issue. It will fit well into courses on strategic management, social movement and institutional theory.

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 1: Accounting and Finance.