Definition of anti-corruption for purposes of the award: Cases on anti-corruption will focus on effective approaches to counter corruption in business dealings. Cases dealing with publicly-traded, privately-held or state-owned enterprises will be welcomed.
The award will use the working definition of corruption adopted by Transparency International (TI), applying to both the public and private sectors: “Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” This fairly broad definition allows case writers to focus on a number of challenges that go beyond the issues of bribery alone, to include other types of transgressions that undermine trust and transparency between businesses and their consumers, suppliers, employees, communities, economic partners, and other stakeholders.
Cases can be set within a single country or based on cross-border transactions.
Illustrative examples of possible anti-corruption topics/issues include the following:
- Payment of bribes to public officials in order to enter new markets and/or to pass inspections to continue operations;
- Payments of kickbacks in return for orders or contracts;
- Lack of transparency or deception in communication about product capabilities/performance/safety;
- Lack of transparency or deception in communication/practices regarding employee safety procedures and/or environmental standards/practices;
- Lack of transparency or deception in financial reporting and shareholder relations;
- Lack of transparency or deception in determination of employee performance-based compensation;
Description of GVV-Style Cases and Teaching Notes
GVV cases present a challenge of implementation rather than of decision-making: that is, as Carolyn Woo, former Dean of the Notre Dame Business School, described the approach, they are “post-decision-making.” They are told from the point of view of the protagonist, who knows what he or she thinks is “right,” but is struggling with how to act on this conviction: that is, what to do and say, to whom, when, and in what context. A GVV case concludes with a protagonist who knows what he or she believes is right, but before they have determined how best to give voice to their values. An epilogue or (B) case should include a description of what the protagonist actually did and said.
GVV cases are usually based on experiences of individuals who have, in fact, found a way to voice and act on their values. They are not presented as “heroes or heroines.” In fact, sometimes their approaches can certainly be improved upon. However, they illustrate doable real world behaviors by men and women with whom readers can identify.
Sometimes, of course, a GVV case features someone who did not necessarily find an effective way to enact their values. In such cases, the teaching task is to “re-script” and re-design their action plan, so they may have a better chance of success.
Each case must be accompanied by a teaching note. Although these can be customized to fit the particular case, they should include the following elements:
- A statement of the value position the protagonist holds;
- An exploration of what is at stake for all parties;
- An anticipation of the kinds of “reasons & rationalizations” or pushback that the protagonist is likely to encounter when they try to act on their values;
- An identification of promising “arguments,” responses and action levers that the protagonist might use to enact their values;
- A proposed action plan and “script.”
Cases should be no more than 15 pages single-spaced. Teaching notes should be no more than 15 pages single-spaced. Cases may be disguised. Preference will be given to field-researched cases, but cases based on other kinds of primary data (e.g., legal documents, government investigations, organizational correspondence) will also be considered. Cases that are judged acceptable will, with signed releases from authors and case subjects, be eligible for inclusion in the global GVV Curriculum Collection. Authors will retain copyright and will be free to submit their cases for publication elsewhere if they wish, including NACRA’s Case Research Journal.
Examples of GVV-style cases are available at www.GivingVoiceToValues.org, and examples of GVV-style teaching notes are available to faculty from Mary C. Gentile, PhD, Director of GVV, Mgentile3@babson.edu.
Judging Process: Submissions will be evaluated by Mary C. Gentile, representing the Giving Voice to Values initiative, and two judges nominated by the North American Case Research Association. Individuals who have submitted a case to the competition will be ineligible to serve as a judge.
Cases should be submitted electronically, following the submission instructions provided on the NACRA website (wwww.nacra.net). [Instructions will be posted in early 2014.] The submission deadline is normally in mid-June for the annual conference, which will be held in Austin, Texas, on October 23-25, 2014. For questions about the submission process or about NACRA, please contact the 2014 Program Chair, Prof. Randall Harris, at RAHarris@csustan.edu. Questions about Giving Voice to Values should be submitted to Dr. Mary Gentile, at MGentile3@babson.edu.