個案總覽

Based on their use of a shared computer and the Internet ads that keep popping up, two co-workers suspect that another co-worker is HIV-positive or has AIDS. Using this story platform, the case explores Internet marketing, especially the powerhouse search engine Google and how it tracks its users' habits. The history of Google is chronicled, as well as the privacy issues that have mushroomed as the Internet and its technology have developed.

This technical note begins with the resolution of the "Google and Internet Privacy" case (UV1354) (disturbed by the office reaction to him, Charlie resigns), and then discusses the privacy issues the case addresses. Although "personal privacy" is a difficult concept to define, academics and social commentators continue to struggle with that definition as well as the value of "personal privacy." For an individual, privacy is a significant factor in determining one's autonomy and independence. This technical note discusses the concept of personal privacy from a Utilitarian and a Kantian perspective.

Michael Pirron was a health care services consultant who had always dreamed of starting a "Nonprofit Competitive Business" with a social mission. In 2006, he launched Impact Makers, a new hybrid entity that crossed the nonprofit/for-profit lines. Although it was a small business like many others (paying competitive salaries, bidding for work, providing professional services at market prices), Impact Makers had several unique components: It would contribute strategic consulting, and all profits, to charitable community organizations; there was no stock and equity ownership; it had a volunteer board of directors and its financial information was open to the public. The first two years saw some successes and some setbacks. Impact Makers faced the challenges of growth: how to get more customers, more revenue, and a more predictable revenue stream. How would Impact Makers raise investment capital with its unique organizational structure? And how would the company survive?

This case outlines the dilemma of V. Raja, president and CEO of GE Healthcare India, when the company's ultrasound machines were implicated in many cases of prenatal sex determination. Even in the 21st century, Indian society favored males and many in India saw females as a burden on their families. Studies had shown that fewer and fewer girls were being born, with potentially catastrophic results for future Indian society. The reason: Many women were relying on ultrasound machines to determine the gender of their fetus and, if it were a girl, having abortions. Raja knew that GE Healthcare and ultrasound machines were providing much better medical care for Indians, particularly those in rural communities, and that the company was following all the rules and regulations to prevent this type of abuse. But he also understood the social issues that were involved. Ultrasound machine sales had enormous potential to help maintain GE's market-leading position in India. But should the company step back from its aggressive sales strategy? How could Raja and the company alleviate the growing discontent among critics and the media against the practice of prenatal sex determination testing using GE's ultrasound machines? What additional efforts did GE need to make to prove its intentions of promoting prenatal care? What other efforts should the company make to stop the illicit prenatal gender determination and resulting abortions? How could he protect the as yet untarnished image of GE as a responsible corporation going forward?

This case picks up after the end of "ExxonMobil and the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline (A)" (UVA-E-0262), presenting additional facts, advancing in the story, and setting up a new and challenging decision to be made about the project.

One of the few remaining producers of lead additives must decide whether to continue producing them for use abroad. Banned in the United States, lead additives were still legal in developing nations. Ellie Shannon, the division manager overseeing bromine production for the Indiana-based Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (Great Lakes), must advise Great Lakes' directors on whether the company should 1) continue production for the foreseeable future, while developing countries moved from leaded vehicles to unleaded vehicles; 2) wash its hands entirely and immediately of the lead additive business; or 3) aggressively phase out its participation in this marketplace, with a five-year deadline, while lobbying for developing nations to switch to unleaded gasoline. Each of the options had its downside, however, financially, operationally, and in terms of reputation. Great Lakes placed a great deal of importance in its shareholders' well-being and in remaining a viable company, but it also wanted to be-and to be seen as-a respectable corporate citizen.

Is "Fair Trade" really fair? This case examines the concept, history, and logistics of the Fair Trade movement, specifically for coffee. Fair Trade began as an attempt to ensure farmers received fair compensation for their crops and credit when needed. Fair Trade also provided opportunities to help coffee growers learn best practices and sustainable farming methods (minimal damage to the environment, for example). But Fair Trade had its critics, who claimed that ultimately the farmers did not benefit and that retailers charged more for Fair Trade products and pocketed the difference. This case examines these issues through the eyes of one coffee-drinker who has specifically chosen her caffeine venue because of the Fair Trade designation.

What should a manager with a multinational corporation do when his employee confides that he may have accidentally killed someone? The plant where they work is located in Vietnam; the employee, a native, is hesitant to face the charges given his concerns about the fairness of the local legal system. He is seeking both advice and help. The B case (UV1170) updates the situation and provides additional fodder for discussion.

This case updates the situation outlined in the A case (UVA-E-0323), providing information that helps students to both evaluate the decision made in the A case and determine what to do next.

In an ever-changing world, certain topics-such as sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and gender-still are hot-button items for many people. This series of vignettes covers many diversity topics, primarily in the workplace, and should promote engaging and intense debate. In reading them, students should try to see each vignette from the different perspectives presented.

Facebook was one of the many social networking Web sites (such as MySpace.com) that launched in 2004. A free-access site that allowed users to connect and interact with other people, Facebook was immensely popular, having millions of active users. Of course, putting questionable content on one's Facebook page could become a source of embarrassment. In this case, consulting firm manager Miranda Shaw is trying to decide between two highly qualified applicants for a position in her company. She's leaning toward hiring one candidate until she finds photos on his Facebook page of him partaking in unsuitable activities (smoking pot, etc.) during college. Shaw is no longer certain about her decision. This case provides a brief and simple way to look at the issues, privacy and others, of social networking sites.

Miranda Shaw had decided to do a Google search on the two finalists for the open position in her company. Based on the photos she saw on her preferred applicant's Facebook page, she decided to hire the other applicant, whose Internet search returned no controversial results. But Shaw found herself wondering if it had been ethical for her to base her decision on a Facebook page, because she had not told either applicant that she would be using the Internet to research them.

This case details the various issues, dilemmas, and complexities of immigration as it relates both to business and American society in general. MegaBank manager Judson Dillon is on the verge of finalizing a $65 million equity investment in the world's largest tomato greenhouse, HydroFruit, Inc., which he believes is an attractive investment opportunity. At the same time, he suspects that the company is an employer of illegal immigrants. Immigration was currently a politically, socially, and legally hot topic in the United States. Laws had been enacted to ensure that employers did not hire illegal immigrants, yet many in the United States said that getting rid of all illegal immigrants was an impossible and, for the U.S. agricultural economy, destructive move. On the surface, HydroFruit was in compliance with all minimum legal requirements, but that didn't mean that some illegals didn't slip through the cracks, and the company's CFO had admitted to Dillon one night that "Without illegals, our industry stops dead." In Dillon's mind, this comment reinforced his suspicion that HydroFruit was no different from many other employers in the agricultural industry, as well as his belief that it simply wouldn't be practical for Congress to disrupt such an important segment of the U.S. economy. Yet MegaBank could not invest in a company that it knew-or suspected of-acting illegally.

In 1995, Procter & Gamble (P&G) scientists began researching methods of water treatment for use in communities facing water crises. P&G, one of the world's largest consumer products companies, was interested in bringing industrial-quality water treatment to remote areas worldwide, because the lack of clean water, primarily in developing countries, was alarming. In the latter half of the 1990s, approximately 1.1 billion (out of a worldwide population of around 5.6 billion) people lacked access to clean drinking water or sanitation facilities. An estimated 6 million children died annually from diseases, including diarrhea, hookworm, and trachoma, brought about by contaminated water. Many of these deaths were preventable if a water sanitation product was paired with effective education and distribution. With a long history of scientific research and innovation in health, hygiene, and nutrition, P&G considered ways it could address the safe drinking-water crisis as the new millennium approached. Although the company had a vast array of successful products, P&G did not offer anything that involved water purification, either domestically or in developing countries where poverty, lack of infrastructure, and inaccessibility of remote communities made the prospect of cleaning up the water more difficult.

In 1999, P&G purchased-through the acquisition of Recovery Engineering in a $265 million deal-PUR Water Filtration System, a point-of-use water filtration system. The PUR water filtration system used a combination of the flocculant iron sulfate, an agent that caused particles suspended in water to bind and form sediment, and calcium hypochlorite (chlorine), a disinfectant. After acquiring the product, P&G began to develop and expand it. With the success of PUR Water Filtration System, Procter & Gamble Health Sciences Institute (PGHSI) and its partners created the Children's Safe Drinking Water (CSDW) campaign, which targeted developing countries, in 2003. PUR was distributed, often at no cost, to poor countries where the drinking water was not safe, and elsewhere during emergencies: the Asian tsunami, flooding in Haiti, or cholera epidemics in Africa, among others. Through the CSDW program from 2003 to 2007, P&G had provided the sachets at no cost, made no profit on PUR sales, and donated programmatic funding to some of the CSDW projects. Between 2003 and 2007, 85 million sachets of PUR, treating 850 million liters of water, had been distributed globally in emergency response or sold through social marketing projects. With the help of its various partners, PGHSI had made the product available in 23 countries. Procter & Gamble had finally entered the water purification business but had chosen to augment its commercial and retail sales by helping bring clean drinking water to developing countries.

In 1999, the 20-year-old AIDS crisis had ravaged many developing countries and, in particular, on the continent of Africa. Of the estimated 33.4 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide in 1998, almost two-thirds (22 million) were in sub-Saharan Africa, considered the "global epicenter" of the disease. Already 12 million had died, and life expectancy in the region plummeted from 62 years to 47. Chicago-based Abbott Laboratories had responded at the start of the AIDS outbreak by developing the HIV diagnostic test kit and then, later in the crisis, developed some of the state-of-the-art HIV/AIDS drugs. Abbott executives, led by new CEO Miles White, wanted to address the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, but in a specific, efficient, and effective way. This case details the evolution of the AIDS crisis, Abbott Laboratories' HIV/AIDS drug production, and the company's efforts-in 1999-to find other ways to battle HIV/AIDS globally.

In 1999 and 2000, Abbott Laboratories' senior management considered a number of philanthropic options that could make a difference and define the focus for Abbott and the Abbott Fund's charitable programs. Although the cause was humanitarian, it was considered important that the programs align strategically with Abbott's leadership in the HIV/AIDS arena. The Abbott Fund officially launched the Program for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in June 2000. The program assisted orphans and vulnerable children infected and affected by HIV/AIDS as well as the communities that cared for them. They chose Tanzania as host for a pilot program, which involved updating the country's community health care infrastructure. Abbott partnered with Tanzania's Ministry of Health over the next five years to upgrade the facilities at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar Es Salaam, the Tanzanian capital; build an HIV center comprising an outpatient clinic and counseling/support facilities; create a national HIV teaching center; and introduce pharmacy, health information, and management systems. The dramatic growth of the Abbott Fund HIV/AIDS programs suggested a strategic turning point for the Abbott Fund, transforming it from a domestic philanthropic program to one with a global focus, now aligned with Abbott's international business focus. By 2003, nearly $20 million from the Abbott Fund was being invested in its developing-world AIDS programs.

The partnership between Abbott and the government of Tanzania continued to flourish. As a demonstration of Abbott's long-term commitment to Tanzania, in 2007, the Abbott Fund opened its first office outside Abbott headquarters in Illinois. The new office in Dar es Salaam, led by Divisional Vice President Christy Wistar, oversaw the expanding number of philanthropic projects in Tanzania. In June 2007, Abbott CEO Miles White returned to Tanzania for the third time and announced the Abbott Fund's future plans to modernize the 23 regional laboratories across Tanzania. By the end of 2007, the Abbott Fund had invested more than $50 million in Tanzania alone, strengthening and modernizing the health care infrastructure and systems countrywide. The Abbott Fund planned to continue its support of numerous programs and organizations that were working to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS and deliver effective care and treatment to HIV-infected patients. The Abbott Fund also supported programs that provided for the basic needs of orphans and vulnerable children in Tanzania and elsewhere in Africa and India.

McDonald's Corporation, the behemoth of the fast food industry, has taken its share of criticism-even ridicule-over the years. The image of the company suffered as the public began to perceive its jobs as dead-end, unskilled, and unstimulating. The term "McJob," coined by an author in 1991, was slang for a low-paying job that required little skill and provided little opportunity for advancement. But in many ways, McDonald's Corporation defied norms, using a combination of promotion-from-within strategy and benchmark employee training programs to develop an abundant pool of human capital. The company was deeply committed to its employees who "started as crew" coming up through the ranks, receiving the necessary training at its own Hamburger University. This case tells the story of Jan Fields, who started at McDonald's making french fries and found herself 20 years later serving as executive vice president and chief operations officer at McDonald's USA.

This case explores the larger context of competition among Internet companies for market share globally, especially in the emerging Chinese economy, as well as concerns about advancing the core values of the company including user privacy. Specifically, it concerns the decision facing Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang when he is confronted with a request by the Chinese government to release the name of one of its users for alleged violations of Chinese law.