In this vignette, students play the role of a newly appointed CEO joining a successful private company with 100 employees. The CEO will plan to hold two meetings with employees. The first meeting will be with the eight key department managers who have been reporting to the previous CEO who has since resigned. The second meeting will be with all 100 of the company's employees. In this vignette, students will choose to role play one of these meetings and prepare for questions that may be asked.
A female GSB graduate assumed the role of CEO of a SaaS company operating at slightly above breakeven. Three weeks into the role, she had built trust with the VP of operations, but she had not been well received by her two other direct reports who were VPs of Technology and Sales and Marketing. In this vignette, these two managers asked to meet the CEO and demanded salary increases, which they claim had been promised to them by the company's previous owners. They also expressed misgivings about the VP of Operations and refused to comply with a request the CEO had made earlier last week. The vignette ends with the CEO getting ready to plan her conversation with the two managers.
In April 2021, the giant US automaker Ford Motor Company was facing a decision regarding its Indian operations, which were struggling. It had brought in a new global chief executive officer—its fourth in the past decade—who was tasked with making this choice. The company could remain invested in India, either operating on its own or in a joint venture. It could also decide to manufacture for export or choose to exit the Indian market entirely. Ford Motor Company had to decide on an international corporate-level strategy, all while considering the factors influencing the changing Indian market and the rise of new technology. What would be the best path forward for the automaker?
In 2021, Gina Lucarelli, leader of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Accelerator Labs, prepared for a meeting with UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner. The two planned to discuss the future of the Accelerator Labs, a network of social innovation labs located in countries throughout the world. The labs discovered promising solutions to social problems within a specific local community and elevated their learnings to the lab network. The first set of labs launched in 2019 and had high levels of autonomy, essentially operating as startups. While Lucarelli was pleased with the progress of the first cohort of labs, she was uncertain whether Steiner would continue them beyond their initial three-year funding window. Lucarelli envisioned three paths forward for the labs. The labs could wind down and integrate their methodologies into UNDP country offices, secure independent funding and spin out from UNDP, or reintegrate with the central organization and operate within the UN's research and development division. At the conclusion of the case, Lucarelli must decide which would be the best option to advance UNDP's mission of promoting environmental sustainability and global well-being.
The case explores whether alternative investments play a unique role in achieving low carbon dioxide emissions at the portfolio level. This case is set in April of 2020 and follows Kasper Ahrndt Lorenzen, Chief Investment Officer, and Peter Tind Larsen, Head of Alternative Investments, at PFA, the largest commercial pension fund in Denmark. PFA had recently seen increased demand from its corporate clients to offer a product with lower carbon dioxide emissions. The case explores PFA's decision to offer a "Climate Plus" product that would aim to produce strong returns and meet ambitious climate-related goals. In the case, the protagonists meet to discuss the role of alternative assets in the product. Importantly, PFA already has a significant presence in the alternative space and, in particular, in private equity and renewable energy. A large fraction of their alternative portfolio is managed in-house. Among other things, PFA is thinking about adding timberland investments as a new asset class to achieve net zero emissions. Lorenzen and Larsen need to determine if they could leverage their existing team and processes to invest in timberland and whether it is the right time to launch a climate-focused product. This case provides a good platform for discussion on direct investing in the alternative space and the role of alternatives for large institutional investors.
In April 2021, the giant US automaker Ford Motor Company was facing a decision regarding its Indian operations, which were struggling. It had brought in a new global chief executive officer-its fourth in the past decade-who was tasked with making this choice. The company could remain invested in India, either operating on its own or in a joint venture. It could also decide to manufacture for export or choose to exit the Indian market entirely. Ford Motor Company had to decide on an international corporate-level strategy, all while considering the factors influencing the changing Indian market and the rise of new technology. What would be the best path forward for the automaker?
Circulr was a start-up that provided a solution for consumer waste by collecting used packaging, washing it, and selling it back to the original brand and product manufacturer so that the packaging could be reused. Instead of building its own washing facility, Circulr rented spare washing capacity from industrial kitchens. The company’s co-founders had ambitious goals for Circulr, but in order to achieve them, there were two essential issues that needed to be resolved. The first issue was that of incentivizing brands, manufacturers, and end-users to reuse their packaging. Disposable packaging remained extremely convenient for consumers, and Circulr needed to develop a collection system that made it easy and rewarding for consumers to place their used packaging in Circulr’s collection bins instead of in the garbage can. The second issue was that of operational scale and configuration. If Circulr were to successfully grow demand and supply over time, how would its operational system evolve to achieve the necessary capacity and capabilities? Could the use of third-party washing facilities continue to be sustainable at scale? How would processes and policies evolve to gain competitiveness?
This case presents an ethical quandary faced by Rob Edwards, director of trust and safety of a large New Zealand-based C2C (customer-to-customer) online marketplace. Following a review of its animal welfare policy, Rob is considering regulating the marketplace's trade in pugs, English bulldogs, and French bulldogs, breeds that suffer from a condition called brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS). Via a dialogue between Rob and his team, the case explores several options for resolving the problem. The case highlights the complexity of moderating digital platforms in a way that balances openness with trust and safety.
Circulr was a start-up that provided a solution for consumer waste by collecting used packaging, washing it, and selling it back to the original brand and product manufacturer so that the packaging could be reused. Instead of building its own washing facility, Circulr rented spare washing capacity from industrial kitchens. The company's co-founders had ambitious goals for Circulr, but in order to achieve them, there were two essential issues that needed to be resolved. The first issue was that of incentivizing brands, manufacturers, and end-users to reuse their packaging. Disposable packaging remained extremely convenient for consumers, and Circulr needed to develop a collection system that made it easy and rewarding for consumers to place their used packaging in Circulr's collection bins instead of in the garbage can. The second issue was that of operational scale and configuration. If Circulr were to successfully grow demand and supply over time, how would its operational system evolve to achieve the necessary capacity and capabilities? Could the use of third-party washing facilities continue to be sustainable at scale? How would processes and policies evolve to gain competitiveness?
Set in 2005 in Hyderabad, India, the case revolves around the dilemma facing Chinta Sasidhar, a young entrepreneur and Director of Navayuga Engineering Company Limited (NECL), who was presented with an unexpected opportunity to develop Krishnapatnam Port, a greenfield seaport on the east coast of India. Sasidhar had to decide whether or not to take on the mammoth infrastructure project with all of its associated challenges, or continue working on the transformation of NECL's traditional business. Sasidhar met with Srinivas Vallabhaneni, a seasoned entrepreneur whom he regarded as an advisor, and told him about his predicament. They discussed Sasidhar's dilemma over a game of golf, the conversation taking several different turns over the course of their game. Through a series of thought- provoking questions, the case lays the framework for a thorough evaluation of the new opportunity- what Sasidhar needs to do in order to decide whether or not to go forward with the port project. This is the crux of the case-evaluating an entrepreneurial opportunity in the infrastructure sector in India.
Shareholder primacy has been a widely accepted norm in the business community for decades, leading executives and directors to focus on maximizing profits along with the value of the corporation’s shares. Nevertheless, critics have long questioned whether public companies should prioritize the interests of investors over the interests of other stakeholders. The most recent analysis of the legal standard that dictates the fiduciary duty of directors in Canadian corporate law was issued in 2008 when the Supreme Court of Canada released the BCE v 1976 Debentureholders decision. Some scholars theorized that this decision signalled a shift toward a more stakeholder-friendly model of corporate governance by calling on directors to act in the “best interests of the corporation.” This article provides an overview of the framework governing the fiduciary duty of directors with an analysis of the historical and economic context that has underpinned this area of corporate law since the Great Depression. It then examines what director duties within Canada might look like in the future while offering insights from the landmark BCE decision to help manage the director’s dilemma. The BCE decision suggests that when competing interests arise, the overriding principle for corporate directors should be to act in the best interests of the corporation by making decisions that aim to drive long-term success, as opposed to immediate profits and increased share value.
In August 2017, Concentrix Corporation (CNX) partnered with Photon Life Insurance Company (PLI), a leading insurance provider in India, to support PLI's customer management service. On February 1, 2018, Mohit Khanna, global operations manager at CNX, undertook a promising task to improve PLI’S customer persistency at minimal operational cost. If all policyholders with an approaching due date were to be called, then the number of service agents required would be very high, leading to significant operational cost increases. Khanna’s challenge was to design a contact prioritization strategy that could be implemented at minimal cost and improve persistency.
Do we have to completely change the way we eat to save the planet? If so, can business lead the way? Case protagonist Sandhya Sriram, a Singapore entrepreneur, is attempting to do just that. With a cofounder, she launches a start-up to 'grow' shrimp meat by replicating cells in a lab setting as an alternative to aquaculture settings that pollute the ocean. The case takes students through the challenges and risks of launching a start-up with an ambitious goal - to re-invent food production. In 2021, an opportunity arises to acquire another Singapore start-up - this one working on lab-grown beef. Sriram must decide whether to double down on her investment in cell-cultured meat. Is lab-grown meat a sustainable alternative to aquaculture settings and factory farms? Can the venture be scaled up enough to make a profitable business? Students can be asked to step into the founders' shoes and also to analyze the case from the perspective of a socially responsible investor.
For thirty-five years, Dollar Tree, a discount retail chain selling general merchandise, had held it fixed price point steady, pricing all of its household items, food, stationery, books, seasonal items, gifts, toys, and clothing that made up its diverse and ever-changing assortment at $1.00. While all other dollar store chains had raised prices over the years to keep up with inflation, Dollar Tree had never budged on its price. However, in late 2021 the company announced that Dollar Tree was "breaking the buck" and raising prices on all goods to $1.25. Would the demise of the $1.00 price point bring about the downfall of Dollar Tree or could the retail chain weather its price change without alienating its price sensitive shoppers through smart marketing, pricing, and branding strategies?