This field-based case describes the situation facing David Bronner, cosmic engagement officer (CEO) of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps (Dr. Bronner's), the top-selling brand of natural soaps in North America in 2019. Since its founding, the company has centered advocacy for unity and social change in its products and giving. The question before David and the leadership team is whether to extend the brand further by publicizing its support for the use of psychedelics to treat mental health. David believes passionately in this cause, and he has been a major supporter of scientific and political efforts to support the informed use of psychedelics to alleviate suffering. While scientific studies are increasingly highlighting their promise and Dr. Bronner's has experience with other "label" campaigns for social issues, psychedelics remain Schedule I drugs, and other key decision-makers lack David's zeal for the cause. Dr. Bronner's established its unique position in the mid-20th century based on founder Emil Bronner's "All-One" vision of universal love and his German family's multigenerational expertise as soap makers. Since his death in 1998, the family-owned firm has grown rapidly and profitably, reaching revenues over $120 million in 2018. Students are asked to make a recommendation about whether to introduce a label campaign declaring support for psychedelic therapy and to assess that decision in ways that align clearly with the firm's perspective on value creation. The case is designed primarily for a core curriculum course in business strategy or business ethics. Because of the issues it raises, it also works well in brand marketing and leadership courses. The decisions embedded in the case are pertinent to all levels-MBA students, undergraduates, and executives.
In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) published "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options," which, among other things, detailed the connection between livestock agriculture, particularly beef, and its adverse impact on the environment, including land, soil, and water degradation as well as the reduction of biodiversity. Raising livestock contributed, globally, to 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The report presented a problem for McDonald's, one of the world's largest fast-food restaurant chains, which was one of the largest global purchasers of beef, at 500 million pounds annually. Bob Langert, McDonald's Vice-President of Sustainability, was tasked by the CEO to create a "bold, offensive strategy" in sustainability. Langert knew that for McDonald's to consider its operations truly sustainable, it should begin to look beyond ï¬xing incremental problems within its current system and instead consider transforming the beef system itself. Because of its global reach and international scale, McDonald's was ideally situated to lead the US beef industry to explore more sustainable practices. The company already had a track record of sustainable transformation in waste, packaging, and recycling. However, Langert knew it would not be an easy task, since there would be many environmental organizations as well as the National Beef and Cattlemen's Association that would be scrutinizing McDonald's efforts. Langert and his colleagues would need to navigate the large cast of characters-internal and external, both individuals and organizations-in their efforts to address the issues around livestock agriculture and sustainability.
This case is a follow-up to ""Gwen Berry and the Politics of Protest (A)"" (UVA-E-0479). Gwen Berry did protest at the Pan American Games in the summer of 2019 by raising her fist in the air when the US national anthem was playing. Pushback by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the public was swift and fierce. Berry, along with US fencing team member Race Imboden, who also protested, was put on problem for a year and immediately lost the sponsors who had supported her. With few exceptions, her fellow athletes voiced no support. However, after the death of George Floyd in May 2020 and the subsequent protests and sustained examination of social and racial-justice issues, things seemed to be turning a positive corner. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee apologized to Berry and seemed to be making the protest rules more lenient. Yet Berry knew that the underlying problems still existed and that the IOC maintained its grip on how protests could occur and on the athletes' lives and livelihoods. Berry thought about how she should move forward, both to propel her track and field career and to help other athletes stand up for themselves with the USOPC and make their voices heard-and, hopefully, to change the mindset and thinking of the IOC leadership.
In the summer of 2019, notable track and field athlete Gwen Berry was representing Team USA at the Pan American Games in Peru when, having won the hammer throw-her specialty-she stood anxiously on the podium for the medal ceremony as the United States national anthem began to play. As she thought about both her own challenging upbringing and the social and racial injustice in the United States, exemplified by a recent encounter she'd had with a suffering homeless person, Berry wanted to make a gesture of protest. To do so, however, was against the International Olympic Committee's (IOC's) Rule 50, which prohibited protest in many sports venues, and would no doubt result in Berry's being disciplined at best, and perhaps even prohibited from further competition at worst. She was torn between making a statement there on the podium and the possible consequences and harm to her athletic career that might ensue if she did. This case pairs well with a technical note about the IOC's Rule 50, ""The United States Olympic Committee and Rule 50 in the 21st Century"" (UVA-E-0478).
This technical note explains the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) Rule 50, put into place in the 1970s, which prohibited protest at the Olympic Games. The stated goals of the rule were to (1) protect the athletes; (2) minimize commercialization of the Games in what was known as the ""clean venue"" policy; (3) prevent the Games from becoming a vehicle for ""promotion of political, religious or racial propaganda""; and (4) specify what was allowed on sports uniforms and equipment (such as logos and manufacturers' name), all to prevent unauthorized parties from using the public platform of the Olympics for their own purpose. However, athletes had pushed back for decades and, in 2020, with worldwide social protest following the killing of George Floyd, the IOC had to rethink Rule 50 and how the organization would deal with protest at the Games. This note gives a brief history of the Olympics and of protest at the games over the course of their existence.
This case is a follow-up to ""NASCAR and the Confederate Flag (A)"" (UVA-E-0441). It outlines how National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing (NASCAR) leadership announced on June 10, 2020, that the Confederate flag was no longer welcome at race events and venues. Reaction was both positive and negative. However, despite this decisive move, questions remained, including: How would each track enforce the ban? What steps could NASCAR take to move past this controversy and get fans-and some employees who disagreed with the ban-to focus on the sport? How could NASCAR grow its demographics beyond the conservative, white Southerners who had comprised much of NASCAR's fanbase over history, and how could the organization become more inclusive?
In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the protests that followed the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody, leadership at the National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing (NASCAR), the American auto-racing company best known for stock-car racing, had to decide whether to ban the Confederate flag at its events. To many, the flag was emblematic of racism and a celebration of the Confederacy and its attempts, in the American Civil War, to retain the institution of slavery. Race attendees often carried the flag with them, it was emblazoned on clothes, souvenirs, and mugs, and some even tattooed it on themselves. The Confederate flag had been controversial for years, and NASCAR had tried to eliminate it and other racist symbols from its events, but to no avail. But this time was different: awareness of injustice and inequity had permeated the country's social consciousness and people throughout America had taken to the streets to protest. Nonetheless, many NASCAR fans claimed the Confederacy flag was representative of "heritage, not hate" and threatened to boycott the sport if it were banned. Despite NASCAR's attempts to diversify both the organization and the audience, NASCAR's fan base remained decidedly conservative and, for the most part, tolerant of the flag's presence. NASCAR did not want to alienate its fan base, but leadership did want to change with the times and instill diversity in every aspect of the organization. It also did not want to put up roadblocks to attendee comfort-and for many current and potential fans, the Confederate flag's presence was a roadblock.
These vignettes highlight several ethical issues for MBA students as they begin to look for a job. They serve as a practical springboard for a discussion of topics, including one's obligation to classmates, the recruiting firm, and the school itself.
The benefits or harms achieved by a business is determined in part by the choices that business leaders make. One important driver of these choices is a leader's view of the purpose of business. This note: (1) outlines the history of debates about corporate purpose, (2) calls out some myths that persist in the way that people think about corporate purpose, and (3) introduces a view of business called "managing for stakeholders" that has become increasingly influential.
The following note attempts to catalog and analyze a set of flawed but common arguments made in business and organizational settings to drive strategic and operational decision making. The arguments are deconstructed into syllogistic form-a set of premises leading to a conclusion-and analyzed for validity and soundness. The final part of this note pays attention to ways decision makers can avoid such bad arguments and the rationalization that often goes hand in hand with them.
Intuition can be a good guide for decision making when the current situation generally matches the situations in which the intuition was formed. But for novel or ambiguous situations, relying only on intuition can blind us to possible negative consequences by focusing our attention only on data that support our intuition. To reduce the likelihood of these errors and to better imagine and prepare for the outcomes of our choices, we use a decision-making framework. This note outlines the process of how to apply a framework.
Since ethics is an integral part of management, it is vital for managers to become comfortable with the language of ethics, and to understand how it is inextricable from the language of business. Students will examine key theories of ethics and how they apply to management decision making.
This note, intended to accompany the short booklet An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments, discusses the logical framework behind argumentation and presents the basic logical rules necessary to reach sound conclusions. Throughout, it refers to the philosophical foundations of logical reasoning and attempts to address these concepts in the framework of management. By the end, diligent students should be able to identify the necessary structure and components of a sound argument-as well as the fatal attraction of unsound arguments-and be able to apply these ideas to create long-term value as leaders of firms and organizations.
John Hume, a veteran game farmer and founder of the Mauricedale Game Ranch in South Africa, was deeply troubled by the record upsurge in black rhino poaching incidents and black-market horn thefts in 2010 and 2011. While the endangered black rhino represented only one segment of Mauricedale's hunting and farming businesses in 2011, the animal's survival was an important component of the ranch's and industry's growth potential in the future. As both a businessman and a rhino advocate, John Hume was contemplating an innovative idea that might help stop the decline of the black rhino: the creation of a market for legalized black rhino hunting. As he pondered the possibilities and alternatives to determine what his next move should be, Hume had several questions on his mind: Was the legalization of the international sale and trade of rhino horns a viable solution? Was it Hume's responsibility to save the black rhino, and was the animal a good investment?
Leadership is an enduring subject for research, writing, and discussion. There are almost endless theoretical and fundamental explanations as to what leadership is and what makes a good leader. The research has gone through various different phases. Intended for all audiences but specifically written for an Executive Education course, this technical note identifies some of the contemporary theories and prominent thinkers in the field of leadership and outlines the basics of their views.
Marketing tactics such as pricing, promotion, placement, and product decisions all help business owners create a need for their products or services. What managers seldom realize, however, is that the marketing decisions they make primarily to increase sales and market share have a great impact on society at large and thus have significant ethical implications. These seven caselets, which cover a variety of topics (including "the article of the half-truth," "creative interview tactics," and "truthfully representing your company," among others), explore the ethical implications of decision making in the marketing arena.