This case follows the evolution of Tony’s Chocolonely (Tony’s)—a Dutch chocolate brand dedicated to eradicating child and forced labour in the chocolate industry supply chain—focusing specifically on the tensions inherent in any sustainable entrepreneurship. From its humble origins as a journalist’s protest over the use of child and forced labour, Tony’s grew into a globally recognized, sustainable brand with a mission to change the chocolate industry and abolish the worst forms of labour abuse. Along the way, Tony’s faced critical decisions where it had to balance conflicting social, environmental, and financial goals across the individual, organizational, and systemic levels—including in its own value chain. Tony’s chief executive officer (CEO) Douglas Lamont must make two key decisions about how to best address these labour practices: 1) what premium should be paid to cocoa farmers to support their livelihoods and thereby remove the need to resort to child and forced labour; and 2) whether to keep working with the Swiss chocolate producer Barry Callebaut AG, which had recently been accused of supporting forced labour in its own supply chain. Was it possible to change the system in the chocolate industry?
Capital Breeders was a major player in the Zambian poultry industry. From processing chickens, Capital Breeders created substantial waste, namely feathers and blood. The company was interested in both saving money and improving its environmental performance. It assessed four alternative uses for this waste: the production of sustainable biomaterials, bio-based fertilizer, bioenergy production, and animal feed. Students were asked to make a qualitative assessment of the options, ultimately ranking them in terms of initial feasibility. The case also provided an opportunity to discuss the ethics of waste diversion in the poultry industry.
In January 2017, Ontario, Canada launched its cap-and-trade program in an effort to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ontario took a progressive position on combatting climate change that included shutting down coal-burning power plants, investing heavily in renewable power, and setting aggressive emissions-reduction targets across all sectors. Its targets included reducing emissions levels of 1990 by 15 per cent in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030, and 80 per cent in 2050. Its efforts allowed the province to meet its 2014 target of 6 per cent below 1990 levels. These targets complemented Ontario's commitment to the United Nation's 2015 Paris Agreement. Firms that annually emitted more than 10,000 tonnes but fewer than 25,000 had the option of entering the market on a voluntary basis. The expected downstream impact to the average Ontario household would be an increase of about CA$150 per year in home-heating and car-fuel costs. However, cost increases would be felt less directly through the rest of the economy. Four particular companies in Ontario had some decisions to make regarding how the province's cap-and-trade program would affect their operations.
In January 2017, Ontario, Canada launched its cap-and-trade program in an effort to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ontario took a progressive position on combatting climate change that included shutting down coal-burning power plants, investing heavily in renewable power, and setting aggressive emissions-reduction targets across all sectors. Its targets included reducing emissions levels of 1990 by 15 per cent in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030, and 80 per cent in 2050. Its efforts allowed the province to meet its 2014 target of 6 per cent below 1990 levels. These targets complemented Ontario’s commitment to the United Nation’s 2015 Paris Agreement. Firms that annually emitted more than 10,000 tonnes but fewer than 25,000 had the option of entering the market on a voluntary basis. The expected downstream impact to the average Ontario household would be an increase of about CA$150 per year in home-heating and car-fuel costs. However, cost increases would be felt less directly through the rest of the economy. Four particular companies in Ontario had some decisions to make regarding how the province’s cap-and-trade program would affect their operations.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the not-for-profit sector in Ontario was forced to shift from a provider of social needs to a creator of social opportunities for communities doubly hit by rising unemployment and falling social supports. The Ontario Trillium Foundation moved to fund innovative, collaborative programs involving not-for-profit organizations, businesses and governments in creating viable social enterprises. Ottawa, London and Sarnia were three communities faced with different, but still difficult economic times, and each had responded to the crisis by proposing alternative models of social transition. In 2013, representatives from the not-for-profit sector in these cities joined with the Richard Ivey School of Business to present a proposal that promised they would work collaboratively, learn from each other, document the entire process and develop tools to prepare and guide many others. Would the Trillium Foundation support such a creative and ambitious project? See supplemental cases 9B14M046B.