Case studies

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.

Carol O'Reilly is the Executive Vice President of a regional bank in the New York metro area. She is evaluating an investment in online banking as an extension of bank services. Her bank, East Side Bank, is one of the most productive in the U.S. In fact, it was named America's most efficient bank in 1998. This became a cornerstone of their marketing strategy and they fiercely protected their efficiency ratio. She received a visiting contingent of bankers from Finland. Their use of technology and online banking was far more developed than most U.S. banks. Yet they were not nearly as efficient as the top U.S. banks. They discovered on their visit, that their cross selling had suffered as their online capability advanced. The U.S. bank customer was more profitable because they used multiple bank services and were willing to pay higher fees for the personal contact. This case centers on the implications of this revelation to East Side Bank.

The primary subject matter of this case concerns the potential impact of the adoption of online banking to a commercial bank. Secondary issues include strategic decision making in the banking industry and a comparison of the impact of technology on banks in Finland and the U.S.

The case has a difficulty level of three, which makes it appropriate for a junior level course. The case is designed to be taught in ½ hours and requires about 3 hours of preparation. It is designed for use in Strategy, Marketing, Money and Banking, or International Business courses.

John Caldwell, president of Kio-Tek (KT), presents his company's business plan to a group of 30 venture capitalists at the November 2001 annual meeting of the Portland Venture Group. John's presentation is included in the case as an exhibit. The case begins with a brief overview of the meeting and John's presentation. The body of the case describes the question and answer period immediately following John's presentation.

Included in the case is a set of exhibits that John has handed out to the audience as supplemental information. These exhibits provide additional information on marketing, management, and financial issues facing the company and John refers to them throughout the question and answer period. The VC's ask John a variety of questions in an effort to determine whether KT is an attractive investment opportunity

The case takes place in the city of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, a booming regional tourist and commercial center located on the Arab (Persian) Gulf coast of the Arabian Peninsula. The story describes Vijay, the Indian (East Asian) entrepreneur, his personality, background, motivations and management style. The focus of the case is on how this entrepreneur grows the business over the seven years leading up to the decision to launch a travel club targeted toward East Asian travelers in the region. The details of the new venture are chronicled from inception to its eventual closure four years later under desperate financial circumstances. The richness of the case is enhanced by the inclusion of details of the legal, economic and cultural factors that define the business context and business risks. The case provides an interesting and informative view of a part of the world that is “in the news” but largely remains a mystery to the typical North American student.

This case, developed from a wide variety of publicly available information, presents ethical and economic issues arising from the development, marketing, and pricing of a biotech drug. Genentech developed TPA, the first genetically engineered drug that could be used in clot-dissolving therapy for heart attack, and marketed it as Activase. Public outrage focused on the disparity between the drug's $10 direct manufacturing cost and what Genentech charged for its drug. Activase/TPA was priced at $2200 a dose, raising immediate concerns about its affordability and therefore availability to those who needed it. Additional issues arise from other events, including concern over related-party relationships between the company and organizations which researched and recommended TPA, as well as aggressive marketing of TPA to physicians and the company's refusal to participate in an international drug study to compare TPA with competitor drugs.

This case looks at the design and implementation of a risk management strategy. It reviews the early moves by Great Plains Energy (GPE) to establish a corporate-wide Enterprise Risk Management program. The corporate Chief Risk Officer is Andrea Bielsker. Andrea appointed Jana Utter to take charge of coordinating the design and implementation of the ERM program. Utter faces a number of challenges. She has had to first conceptualize the program given the charge by the Board of Directors, then design a process by which she identifies the risks that the corporation faces, assist in designing measures for the risks, and work with the various divisions and functional areas to put processes in place to mitigate the identified risks.

Doris, the Executive Director of the JCC, had a Board of Directors that lacked the requisite skills, perspective, behaviors, and willingness to change policies and practices in order to meet external environmental opportunities and threats or to address internal competencies and competitive capabilities. Changes in the external environment were exacerbating the JCC's internal deficiencies. In addition, the Board created impediments to the professional staff's efforts to implement good managerial practices and policies. The current management team was acutely aware of the changes in the external environment, how these changes impacted the JCC's operations and what the JCC needed to do in order to meet these challenges. The management team was frustrated by a Board that did not provide leadership, fulfill their responsibilities, hold each other accountable and undermined management by intervening in day-to-day operations. The staff was passively hostile to the Board and to the management team. As consumers, the members' expectations were higher and more demanding. Doris and her management team had to resolve a myriad of strategic and operational issues that confronted the organization.

This case examines the ethical issues raised when businesses contract for the military during time of war. Dow Chemical Company was a military contractor during the Vietnam War and the primary producer of Agent Orange - a defoliant used to clear vegetation. Agent Orange has been linked to a number of serious medical conditions in war veterans and Vietnamese civilians. In 2004, Vietnamese citizens filed suit against Dow for illnesses they believe were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Dow thought the issue should have been addressed through political and social policy, while Vietnamese citizens and U.S. Vietnam war veterans believed Dow was ethically responsible. As the case moved through the U.S. judicial system, some of Dow's investors grew uncomfortable with how it was handled. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was left to wonder what his company could have done differently and what they could learn from the Agent Orange episode that might prevent similar problems in the future. This incident appeared to be a relatively distinct case, but in July of 2007 it was reported that the number of private contract employees in Iraq exceeded that of U.S. military personnel. Consequently, it is likely that companies and their stakeholders will have to address similar issues.

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.