Search results

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.

In March 2007 C. James Prieur, CEO of insurance provider Conseco, was faced with a crisis. The front page of the New York Times featured a story on the grieving family of an elderly woman who had faithfully paid for her Conseco long-term care (LTC) policy, only to find that it would not pay her claims. Her family had to pay for her care (until her recent death), which unfortunately resulted in the loss of the family business. The family was now very publicly pursuing litigation. For a company that depended on thousands of employees, investors, and independent agents who sold the insurance plans, this reputational risk was a serious threat. On top of this immediate crisis, all signs in the industry were pointing to the fact that the LTC business itself was not viable, yet over the years Conseco had acquired a number of LTC insurance providers. Students are asked to analyze not only what Prieur’s priorities should be in addressing the immediate crisis but also the risks inherent in the LTC industry and how this might affect Conseco’s success as a business moving forward

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to:

• Analyze the risks in the long-term care insurance industry

• Distinguish the various types of risk that caused a company’s crisis and recognize the potential for contagion

• Brainstorm how the risks faced by Conseco could have been avoided or better contained

• Recommend the first steps C. James Prieur and the Conseco leadership team should take to rectify the New York Times article crisis

Analyze the risks in the long-term care insurance industry

Distinguish the various types of risk that caused a company’s crisis and recognize the potential for contagion

Brainstorm how the risks faced by Conseco could have been avoided or better contained

Recommend the first steps C. James Prieur and the Conseco leadership team should take to rectify the New York Times article crisis

TASER International, Inc. is one of the world's leading less-lethal weapons manufacturers and distributors. The case begins with a dramatic moment as the President and CEO of TASER International become aware of a highly critical article in Barron's. The article questions the legitimacy of their high stock price and casts doubt on their continued ability to grow. The case presents the company's counterarguments to the critical Barron's article, and asks for alternatives for TASER's next move into the relatively untapped consumer market with a new consumer-oriented product, the TASER X26^C. The case resulted from lengthy in-person, email, and phone interviews with TASER's President, Tom Smith. In addition, the company and its products have been well publicized in the national business press and in the local newspapers. Further, product details and other information on TASERs and other less-lethal weapons has been published in numerous police and military sources. Finally, TASER International's website has been a rich source of supplemental information to support the writing of the case.