個案總覽

The case follows Ziad Abi Chaker, founder and CEO of Cedar Environmental, as he weighs options for how to grow the company in the face of growing economic and political instability in Lebanon in 2019. Founded after the Lebanese civil war, Cedar Environmental was an engineering company whose primary business was designing, building and operating small-scale sorting and composting plants to recycle household waste. Refusing to participate in the political patronage and cronyism that were widespread in the industry (and had precipitated the garbage crisis in 2015), Abi Chaker found it difficult to expand his business. Following the garbage crisis, he had developed a new partnership model with a municipality to design, build and operate a recycling plant, but after a successful pilot project, he struggled to find another suitable partner. One option was to take the technology abroad in response to new opportunities that presented themselves, but Abi Chaker did not want to live outside Lebanon. Another option was to shift more into innovating new products, as he had with Eco-boards, a multipurpose building material made out of recycled plastics. Or should he be more flexible about dealing with corruption for the sake of realizing the dream of a zero-waste Lebanon?

In 2015, Apple CEO Tim Cook debuted the iPhone 6S with enhanced security measures that enflamed a debate on privacy and public safety around the world. The iPhone 6S, amid a heightened concern for privacy following the 2013 revelation of clandestine U.S. surveillance programs, employed a default encryption system that prevented both Apple and government authorities from accessing data stored on the device. Law enforcement officials warned that the encryption hindered investigations for criminal cases and international terrorism and called on Apple to build a backdoor, a way to bypass the encryption. But Cook maintained that any backdoor would compromise customers' privacy and security. In 2016, a federal judge ordered Apple to provide technical assistance to unlock the iPhone used by one of the two mass shooters who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. Apple refused to comply with the order and asked the government to withdraw its demand. This refusal highlighted Apple's stated policy of supporting consumer privacy. Meanwhile, in China, Apple removed various VPN apps from Apple's Chinese App Store. This action elicited strong negative responses from civil rights activists and members of the U.S. government. In 2019, Apple again faced criticism for removing the HKmap.live app from the App Store, which had been used by protestors in Hong Kong. As these situations unfolded, Cook considered his responsibilities to global governments as well as to Apple's customers, employees, and shareholders.

Supplement to case 315108.

Beginning in 2017, technology (tech) company Google faced a series of employee-relations issues that threatened its unique culture of innovation and open communication. Issues included protests surrounding Google's contracts with the U.S. government, restrictions of employee speech, mistreatment of contract and temporary workers, allegations of sexual misconduct and gender inequality, and claims of retaliation against labor organizing. While Google employees felt an obligation to dissent against morally questionable practices, embodying the company's informal motto "don't be evil," the company struggled to respond to employees' concerns while preserving its unique culture.

Witnessing numerous lawsuits alleging that online platform companies misclassified workers as contractors when they were actually employees, Handy's founders faced a series of decisions. Handy was an online platform business that enabled customers to book appointments with cleaners at a convenient time and check the cleaner's ratings. Started in 2012 after the founders struggled to find trustworthy, affordable cleaning services while MBA students, by 2015, Handy enjoyed considerable success. Handy was one of the emerging platform companies in the gig economy that connected customers to service providers and sought to disrupt everything from transportation to grocery shopping to deliveries. Like many of these companies, Handy classified service providers as 1099 independent contractors, rather than hiring them as W-2 employees. Doing so often meant lower labor costs for companies and greater flexibility for workers. The companies' reliance on contractors was controversial. Workers, some argued, displayed all the marks of employees - they performed work that was integral to the companies' business and companies exercised control by telling them which jobs to accept and where and by using ratings systems to influence behavior. Facing two misclassification lawsuits of their own while still pushing toward profitability, Handy's founders must decide how to respond.

This supplemental case tracks the results of the Colman and Taubman-Dye class action suit against Theranos as well as Theranos' other legal challenges, and chronicles the final demise of the company in 2019.

Witnessing numerous lawsuits alleging that online platform companies misclassified workers as contractors when they were actually employees, Handy's founders faced a series of decisions. Handy was an online platform business that enabled customers to book appointments with cleaners at a convenient time and check the cleaner's ratings. Started in 2012 after the founders struggled to find trustworthy, affordable cleaning services while MBA students, by 2015, Handy enjoyed considerable success. Handy was one of the emerging platform companies in the gig economy that connected customers to service providers and sought to disrupt everything from transportation to grocery shopping to deliveries. Like many of these companies, Handy classified service providers as 1099 independent contractors, rather than hiring them as W-2 employees. Doing so often meant lower labor costs for companies and greater flexibility for workers. The companies' reliance on contractors was controversial. Workers, some argued, displayed all the marks of employees - they performed work that was integral to the companies' business and companies exercised control by telling them which jobs to accept and where and by using ratings systems to influence behavior. Facing two misclassification lawsuits of their own while still pushing toward profitability, Handy's founders must decide how to respond.

This case reveals Google's response to a list of employee demands aiming to combat sexual misconduct in the workplace. This case should accompany the (A) and (B) cases, "Gender and Free Speech at Google" (318085) and (319085).

This case should accompany the (A) and (C) cases, "Gender and Free Speech at Google" (318085) and (319097).

This case explores the evolution of Nike's global product sourcing strategy, in particular ongoing efforts to improve working conditions at its suppliers' factories. When the case opens in July 2018, Vice President of Sourcing Amanda Tucker and her colleagues in Nike's Global Sourcing and Manufacturing division were focusing on three key supply chain challenges: sourcing from suppliers that meet compliance standards, challenging and encouraging suppliers to improve capabilities, and being responsive to consumer demand across the world.

This case covers the rise and fall of Theranos, the company founded by Elizabeth Holmes in 2004 to revolutionize the blood testing industry by creating a device that could provide from a small finger prick the same results and accuracy as intravenous blood draws. As founder and CEO, Holmes was hailed as the most successful female tech entrepreneur ever. In October 2015, however, a Wall Street Journal article exposed internal struggles and questioned the startup's trajectory. Subsequent investigations revealed that Theranos, despite commercial operations in 40 retail locations, lacked a functioning product. Set in 2017, the (A) Case opens with Theranos' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by two investors who claimed that Theranos and its officers had violated California's securities law and engaged in fraud.

In August 2017, Google fired James Damore, a 28-year-old software engineer who had been employed by the company since 2013. The move came after Damore penned an internal company memo titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," which posited that innate biological differences between men and women-as opposed to hiring biases, gender discrimination, or a hostile workforce-were at least partially responsible for the low numbers of women in tech. At the time, 20% of Google's tech workforce, and 31% of its overall staff, was female. Damore also admonished Google for silencing opinions that challenged what he viewed as the company's politically liberal belief system. Reactions to both the memo's content and Google's decision to fire Damore were swift and varied. Some praised the company for signaling intolerance of any marginalization of women. Others criticized Google for terminating an employee for a seemingly innocuous act of expression. Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, hired just a few weeks before the memo was leaked to the public, must now advise Google's top leadership team on dealing with the fallout.

Supplement to case 418055. In September 2008, Robert Steel presided over the sale of Wachovia, a top U.S. bank, less than three months after becoming its CEO. Wachovia's exposure to risky home loans led depositors and creditors to flee the bank on Friday, September 26, after the FDIC seized and sold a smaller bank with similar exposure, whose collapse nonetheless made it the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. Faced with Wachovia's impending bankruptcy, the FDIC intervened again, voting on Monday, September 29 to sell Wachovia's retail bank to Citigroup for $1 a share. Three days later, Wells Fargo offered $7 a share for all of Wachovia. Steel needed to decide whether to honor the terms of the deal and exclusivity agreement already sketched out with Citigroup or to approve a definitive merger agreement with Wells Fargo.

In September 2008, Robert Steel presided over the sale of Wachovia, a top U.S. bank, less than three months after becoming its CEO. Wachovia's exposure to risky home loans led depositors and creditors to flee the bank on Friday, September 26, after the FDIC seized and sold a smaller bank with similar exposure, whose collapse nonetheless made it the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. Faced with Wachovia's impending bankruptcy, the FDIC intervened again, voting on Monday, September 29 to sell Wachovia's retail bank to Citigroup for $1 a share. Three days later, Wells Fargo offered $7 a share for all of Wachovia. Steel needed to decide whether to honor the terms of the deal and exclusivity agreement already sketched out with Citigroup or to approve a definitive merger agreement with Wells Fargo.

This supplements the (A) case by summarizing key developments in the Bangladesh ready-made garment industry after the fire at Tazreen Fashions factory, including formation of the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Accord ("Accord") and the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety ("Alliance") in response to the Rana Plaza factory collapse; legal and policy changes in Bangladesh; and independent assessments of safety standards and subcontracting in the industry.

Supplement to case 317113.

Through the challenges facing Target, the case examines ways in which corporations can become involved in political and legislative debates and processes, ranging from campaign contributions to lobbying to political activism. In 2016, Target CEO Brian Cornell must determine how to respond to the debate over North Carolina's recently signed law, commonly known as "HB2," that invalidated LGBT non-discrimination ordinances at the local level. In contrast to other organizations, Target did not threaten to leave the state. However, its public statement in support of LGBT rights prompted a boycott against its stores. Adding to the difficulty was the fact that Target was caught on the other side of the debate in 2010 in one of the earliest high-profile controversies resulting from the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling. Target had contributed to a super PAC supporting business friendly candidates. As one of the candidate's opposition to same-sex marriage became well publicized, Target faced a consumer boycott as well as a shareholder proposal to change its policies on political contributions. The case covers current campaign finance regulations as they relate to business as well as Target's lobbying activities regarding online sales tax legislation.