Search results

This case applies a stakeholder analysis to examine the trade-offs between the firm’s strategy and the interests of different stakeholder groups. A PESTEL analysis supports an evaluation of the firm’s situation. Consumer behavior theories on psychological ownership and territoriality offer a framework for analyzing the conflicts that arise from the inhabitants’ protests.

This case relies on secondary sources, including news reports, social media sites and company websites. This case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in a strategic management course in January 2019 at the University of Cologne, Germany.

In November 2016, Google announced its intentions to rent a building in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin to open a Google Campus, a business incubator for tech start-ups that would offer entrepreneurs support, workshops and access to networks. Following the announcement, dissatisfied local communities organized protests, in which leaders complained that “It is extremely violent and arrogant of this mega-corporation, whose business model is based on mass surveillance and which speculates like crazy, to set up shop here” (Business Times, 2018). Berlin’s Government supported the Google Campus plan; inhabitants rejected it with fierce and persistent protests. In face of this challenge, was it still possible for Google to continue its plans in Berlin?

This case qualifies for use in strategic management classes at undergraduate and MBA levels. Its focus aligns well with stakeholder analyses, PESTEL analyses and business strategy. In addition, for courses on organizational communications or public relations, this case provides a way to explore the relationship between Google and its stakeholders, especially protesters, in detail. Moreover, this case is well suited for consumer research and public policy courses (e.g., transformative consumer research) centered on discussions of territoriality.

The case introduces students to aspects of operations management (OM) and management theory and provides examples of the real-world challenges facing a practitioner. It requires students to think about the operational manager’s responsibilities and how organisational context influences choices and possibly even fit within an organisation.

In this case, a factory lead protagonist presents her OM challenges and choices within a for-purpose, rather than for-profit, a social enterprise in South Africa. The context presented unusual constraints that required thoughtful adaptation and judicious choices. The case introduces students to aspects of OM and management theory and provides examples of the real-world challenges facing a practitioner. It requires students to think about the operational manager’s responsibilities and how organisational context influences choices and possibly even fit within an organisation.

The case is aimed at postgraduate business students studying OM.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 9: Operations and logistics.

Organizational Justice Theory serves as a useful frame for discussion of this case, focusing on perceptions of fairness in the workplace. Such perceptions are shaped by outcomes, procedures, information and interpersonal treatment. Perceptions of justice in these four dimensions are associated with job performance, citizenship behaviors and some mental health outcomes. The Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect (EVLN) Model outlines four potential responses (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect) to perceived job dissatisfaction, serving as a useful framework for students to discuss potential employee reactions to Starbucks’ decisions.

This case was developed from secondary sources, including news reports, company annual reports and websites. The case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in Principles of Management (online and face-to-face) Human Resource Management (online asynchronous) and Labor/Management Relations (online synchronous).

In June 2020, Starbucks became immersed in controversy when its dress code policy conflicted with its public support for national protests over police brutality against Black Americans, including the death of George Floyd while in police custody. While publicly supporting the protests in a series of tweets, an internal memo forbidding employees from wearing Black Lives Matter attire was leaked to the press, generating national outcry, threats of a boycott and forcing Starbucks to reverse course immediately. This case examines the benefits and challenges of a corporate dress/uniform policy, and the implications of corporate involvement in social justice issues.

This case can be used in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses, but particularly in Principles of Management and Human Resources courses.

This case offers the students to see the impact business ethics concepts, including corporate social responsibility, ethical obligation, ethical strategy, alienation, corporate activism, sociopolitical activism, symbolism, transparency, integrity, decoupled organization, opportunism, moral muteness or moral exclusion, etc. Through the student’s own ethical sensitivity, they can then make an informed decision grounded in fundamental ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethics of Care, Virtue Theory, Confucianism, etc.

Data for this case has been gathered entirely from publicly available secondary sources, including online resources, mainstream media reports, biased (opinion-based) media outlets, social media statements from all stakeholder groups (students, business, university) and meeting minutes from campus organizations. None of the named individuals nor entities, in this case, have ever been contacted by the authors.

In Fall 2020, Boise State University contracted a locally owned and operated coffee shop to open a location on-campus. The shop owner was engaged to a police officer who had been permanently injured in an altercation with a dangerous fugitive. For his sacrifice, this police officer was awarded the Medal of Honor from the City of Boise. To support her fiancé, the coffee shop owner displayed a Thin Blue Line flag on the front door of her off-campus location. Students heard of this display and began to voice their objections through administrative and social media channels. The business countered back at claims that they supported racism and ultimately asked to be released from their contract with the university. They closed their on-campus business, having operated the location for less than two months. Media representation of this case created a vocal response both from those who support the business’ use of this imagery and those who support the student’s decision to boycott this business on ethical grounds.

Business ethics: 300–400 level; Business strategy: 300–400 level.

Optifit, an international brand of fitness equipment, had entered the Indian market in 2010 and had rapidly opened 45 stores in 8 years in the four metros (NCR region, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata). Jaiveer Roy was identified by Pravin Gupta (South Zone head) and Raghav Mehta (HR head) to join as Optifit's Store Manager for its Alwarpet branch, Chennai, a store that had leadership difficulties from the day it started in May 2018. Roy joined the store in May 2018 and did very well soon after his appointment to the store. However, in less than three months, both Roy's and his store's performance began to suffer and his relationship with Gupta began to crumble. This case highlights issues in people management, especially support for people selected for leadership positions and examines the performance indicators of an individual's performance at a broader level. The case also points towards the mistakes or errors leaders may commit vis-a-vis their own role as a leader and mentor.

This case addresses stakeholder theory by asking students to consider the various entities that have a vested interest in Delta’s response to the passage of the Senate Bill (SB) 202. Stakeholder theory holds that businesses are responsible to broader constituents in society and not only to stockholders/shareholders or owners. This perspective suggests that businesses do not exist to maximize profit alone but also to enhance society in their day-to-day decisions. To this end, stakeholders are defined as entities that affect or are affected by an organization’s decisions. Stakeholder theory is based on three arguments: descriptive, instrumental and normative arguments.

The information presented in the case was sourced from secondary sources, including both company and media publications. Several media sources from a breadth of political orientations were used to capture the complexity of the issue and the decision at hand. The case development and premise started at the Eastern Academy of Management 2021 Annual Conference Case Hackathon. The case was piloted by eight students (seven undergraduates, one graduate student) in two different courses at two institutions. The student feedback helped to highlight where clarifications were needed within the case and resulted in modifications to the exhibits, appendices and discussion questions.

On March 26, 2021, the media was buzzing about the passage of the Georgia SB 202, which included voting regulations perceived to negatively target black voters. As the head of the state’s largest employer, Delta Airlines’ Chief Executive Officer Edward Bastian found himself at the center of a heated political issue. While Delta had initially shown support for the bill, the rise in opposing voices and pressure to boycott Delta presented increasing pressure to think about its various stakeholders and potentially reevaluate the company’s handling of the situation. Should Bastiasn stay consistent with Delta’s initial support of SB 202, speak out to oppose it or remain silent?

Undergraduate students within business ethics or business in society courses are the best audiences for the case. The case may also be used in courses that have a portion of their content on business ethics or business in society; these related courses with subsections, modules or themes in this area may include corporate strategy, social responsibility and political activism.

Upon completion of the case study discussions, successful students will be able to: discuss the challenges of green financing and provide solutions on how to address such challenges. Explore the different dimensions for structuring a green financing fund. Analyse the risks and suggest a mechanism for de-risking an investment fund.

Kenya Climate Venture was established in 2016 as an independent subsidiary of Kenya Climate Innovation Centre, with a seed capital of $5m from European development financing institutions Danida and UKAid and the fund raised another $5m in new capital in early 2020. Its remit was to invest in commercially viable enterprises in agribusiness, water, commercial forestry, renewable energy and waste management, largely targeting small and medium-sized enterprises. The case is exploring three themes; Theme1: Challenges of climate financing, Theme 2: Structuring a climate financing fund Theme 3: De-risking an investment fund.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Founded in 1971 and acquired by CEO Howard Schultz in 1987, Starbucks was an American success story. In forty years it grew from a single-location coffee roaster in Seattle, Washington to a multibillion-dollar global enterprise that operated more than 17,000 retail coffee shops in fifty countries and sold coffee beans, instant coffee, tea, and ready-to-drink beverages in tens of thousands of grocery and mass merchandise stores. However, as Starbucks moved into new market contexts as part of its aggressive growth strategy, the assets and activities central to its competitive advantage in its retail coffee shops were altered or weakened, which made it more vulnerable to competitive threats from both higher and lower quality entrants. The company also had to make decisions on vertical integration related to its expansion into consumer packaged goods.

Understand how strategy needs to be adapted to new contexts. Understand how to manage tradeoffs involved in growth. Be able to identify possible threats to competitive advantage as a result of growth.