個案總覽

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.

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.

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.

The 1984 Bhopal gas leak tragedy remains unprecedented in any corporate history. The judgement in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Warren Anderson & Ors. rendered in 2010 laid down standards which remain relevant even today for determining the liability of directors arising out of criminal negligence in cases of accidents in hazardous industries.

In 2003, 19-year-old Elizabeth Holmes founded a startup dedicated to making blood testing easier and more affordable. By 2015, her company, Theranos, was worth $9 billion. It boasted a star-studded board and contracts with national pharmacy and supermarket chains Walgreens and Safeway to bring Theranos technology, which could purportedly perform hundreds of tests with a pinprick of blood, to consumers around the country. Over the next few years, however, Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou published a series of articles demonstrating that Theranos' proprietary technology produced inaccurate results, relied heavily on non-proprietary devices to perform its tests, and violated multiple regulatory standards. In 2018, after a three-year stream of revelations about the company's operating practices, corporate culture, and technology, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Theranos with fraud and the company soon collapsed.

As the head pharmacist and manager of Hedrick's Pharmacy, a family-owned, independent pharmacy in Pennsylvania, Samantha Hedrick had to decide whether to continue to stock a wildly popular supplement, Memoral, a blend of vitamins, minerals, and herbs that "may support memory and cognitive function." Despite its hefty price tag ($75 a month

Leaders of Accenture's compliance and ethics program are seeking to design a new code of business ethics for its global workforce of over 400,000 employees. The case explores the decision making process that went into the design process and ultimately how they created a revised code.

Shift Capital was a social impact real estate firm seeking to positively change underserved urban neighborhoods while producing attractive returns for investors. In January 2018 the organization had raised $25 million to date to support the transformation of the economically and socially challenged Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia; however, another $25 million had to be found as quickly as possible in order to move forward with development plans. In this case students are asked to consider the investor concerns that must be overcome in order to attract enough capital to close the fund: Were investors worried about the risk of investing in such a downtrodden neighborhood? Or was it the perception that Shift's target returns were too low or would take too long?

Corruption at the firm level is a very complex issue better understood within its cultural, national, and historical contexts. Using Ukrainian firms as an example via two data sets from 2013 (n = 625) and 2015 (n = 120), we describe two types of corruption: (1) the abuse of power by individuals or groups for private gain, and (2) abuse of power by CEOs and general managers not for their own private gain, but for the gain of other individuals or groups. The latter abuse of power-either within or beyond the existing rules, laws, and norms-is often the only way to get things done in Ukraine. On the other hand, corruption might also be used to hinder business activities. This ambivalent function is the main challenge in mitigating corruption.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms. This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

In late 2019, San Francisco-based electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) maker JUUL Labs (pronounced "jewel") faced intense pressure. Sales of JUUL products exceeded $1 billion in 2018, dominating the e-cigarette category. While JUUL Labs' stated goal was to help current smokers switch from traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes, the company's products had become popular with high school and even middle school students, among whom "vaping"-the use of e-cigarettes-was rapidly spreading. Some advocacy groups and policymakers speculated that JUUL Labs had purposefully marketed its products to minors, an allegation the company strongly denied. The debate over JUUL Labs' marketing and products had made 2019 a difficult year for the company, with a number of states and municipalities imposing bans on the sale of flavored e-liquids, and in some cases, on all e-cigarette products. Given that the company was ostensibly founded to reduce the harm of smoking, what more could JUUL Labs do to prevent misuse of its products, restore its reputation, and grow its business more successfully?

How important are virtue and character when the future of a company is on the line? How does the leader decide between two pressing options? Set in 1981, this case examines decisions taken by Hussamuddin Yaacub, co-founder of the Malaysian publishing company Karya Bestari at a time when the company was in deep distress. The company's future was in doubt thanks to an unsuccessful partnership with Omar, a printer, who had earlier bought a 50% stake in Karya Bestari. This case suggests the managerial usefulness of the concepts and practice of "character" and "virtue," which are little employed in Western management but are central to some Asian companies and cultures. The case also illustrates the paradox that the most effective way to use virtue in business is not to use it for a business purpose. Virtue can be most profitable when it is practiced for its own sake, not for the sake of profit.

How important are virtue and character when the future of a company is on the line? How does the leader decide between two pressing options? Set in 1981, this case examines decisions taken by Hussamuddin Yaacub, co-founder of the Malaysian publishing company Karya Bestari at a time when the company was in deep distress. The company's future was in doubt thanks to an unsuccessful partnership with Omar, a printer, who had earlier bought a 50% stake in Karya Bestari. This case suggests the managerial usefulness of the concepts and practice of "character" and "virtue," which are little employed in Western management but are central to some Asian companies and cultures. The case also illustrates the paradox that the most effective way to use virtue in business is not to use it for a business purpose. Virtue can be most profitable when it is practiced for its own sake, not for the sake of profit.

In April 2018, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called to Capitol Hill to be the star witness at congressional hearings intended to examine Facebook's "breaches of trust" with its users and "larger questions about the fundamental relationship tech companies have with their users." Zuckerberg admitted that his company faced "a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy" but emphasized that his company was "idealistic and optimistic...focused on all the good that connecting people can bring." This ethics case (A) explores some of the issues Facebook has faced since 2014, the criticism it has come under, and its responses. These issues include the "emotional contagion experiment;" privacy issues; fake news; Russian interference in US elections; the "Cambridge Analytica" scandal; charges of bias through targeted ads; and accusations of liberal bias and censorship. The second part of the case (B) then describes some of Facebook's policy responses to these issues, including tweaking the algorithm; developing and deploying new AI tools; changing its mission; and communicating with the public.

In April 2018, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called to Capitol Hill to be the star witness at congressional hearings intended to examine Facebook's "breaches of trust" with its users and "larger questions about the fundamental relationship tech companies have with their users." Zuckerberg admitted that his company faced "a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy" but emphasized that his company was "idealistic and optimistic...focused on all the good that connecting people can bring." This ethics case (A) explores some of the issues Facebook has faced since 2014, the criticism it has come under, and its responses. These issues include the "emotional contagion experiment;" privacy issues; fake news; Russian interference in US elections; the "Cambridge Analytica" scandal; charges of bias through targeted ads; and accusations of liberal bias and censorship. The second part of the case (B) then describes some of Facebook's policy responses to these issues, including tweaking the algorithm; developing and deploying new AI tools; changing its mission; and communicating with the public.

A company commits to providing investors a 200% return on their investment if either the firm or its founder is investigated for corruption.

Since its founding in 2004, Facebook has built a phenomenally successful business at global scale to become the fifth most valuable public company in the world. The revelation of Cambridge Analytica events in March 2018, where 78 million users' information was leaked in a 2016 U.S. election cycle, exposed a breach of trust/privacy among its user community. In the past, growth at any costs appeared to be the de facto strategy. Now many voices such as regulators, advertisers, ethicists, shareholders and users argued for a more responsible approach to addressing their concerns. Mark Zuckerberg (CEO/Chair/Founder) and Sheryl Sandberg (COO) mapped out their six-point plan to address this existential threat. Could they continue to grow and rectify the breach of trust/privacy? Did other stakeholders have some greater responsibility too? In addition to issues of privacy and trust, there is a growing chorus of concern about "content moderation"-not for the easy topics like spam or copyright material-but for the hard things revolving around political points of view, hate speech, polarizing perspectives, etc. How will Facebook strike the balance between free speech and corrosive content across billions of users and dozens of languages? Are they the arbiters of truth/censorship in the digital world?

In April 2018, after it became known that Google was collaborating with the US Department of Defense on Project Maven, over 3,000 employees signed an internal memo asking CEO Sundar Pichai to (a) cancel the project immediately, and (b) enforce a policy stating that the company would never build warfare technology. Project Maven had been launched in early 2017 as part of the DoD's efforts to integrate AI and machine learning into its defense strategies. Drones, robots and AI were increasingly deployed in intelligence gathering and combat operations in what was considered a 21st century "arms race." While Google described its role as "non-offensive," the memo argued that involvement in Project Maven might hurt its reputation and ability to attract talent at a time when public trust in technology was waning. The case puts students in the shoes of a recent hire faced with the choice of signing the memo. It also invites them to consider how they would respond, as CEO, to such a petition against one of the company's contracts.

Unethical behavior and misconduct has been a persistent problem in the business world. A company's ethical norms are a cumulative outcome of how daily ethical dilemmas are addressed in the workplace. Over time, these micro-level issues can evolve into a corporate ethics scandal -unless organizations work to help employees make ethical choices day to day.