蛋黄在哪里?你刚才叫蛋黄酱吗?

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting
Karen Gantt, Daphne P. Berry
{"title":"蛋黄在哪里?你刚才叫蛋黄酱吗?","authors":"Karen Gantt, Daphne P. Berry","doi":"10.1108/tcj-02-2021-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nResearch methodology\nThe data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).\n\n\nCase overview/synopsis\nThis short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.\n\n\nComplexity academic level\nThis case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.\n","PeriodicalId":52298,"journal":{"name":"CASE Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where’s the yolk – did you just call that mayonnaise?\",\"authors\":\"Karen Gantt, Daphne P. Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/tcj-02-2021-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nResearch methodology\\nThe data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).\\n\\n\\nCase overview/synopsis\\nThis short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.\\n\\n\\nComplexity academic level\\nThis case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":52298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CASE Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CASE Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/tcj-02-2021-0031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CASE Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/tcj-02-2021-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究方法本案的数据来自法律和商业研究数据库(Lexis,ABI/INFORM)和商业媒体来源(例如《福布斯》、《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》)。鸡蛋委员会、食品药品监督管理局和联合利华主要参与者之间的电子邮件在整个案件中都有提及,由美国农业部农业营销服务合规处提供,并根据《信息自由法》获得。还参考了适用的联邦法规和规范(《美国法典》、《联邦法规》)。案例概述/概要本案例介绍了Just Mayo这家初创公司在由一家成熟的跨国公司主导的行业中保持和扩大市场份额的问题。2011年,Hampton Creek(2018年更名为Just,Inc)开始作为植物性食品制造商运营。它最早的产品之一是Just Mayo,这是一种三明治,除了不含鸡蛋或其他乳制品外,它具有传统蛋黄酱的所有特性。Just Mayo推出后不久,跨国企业集团和食品巨头联合利华起诉汉普顿溪,声称使用“Just May奥”一词构成虚假广告和不公平竞争。复杂的学术水平本案例是管理学、商法和伦理学专业本科生的学习工具。它于2019年在大二和大三本科生的商法课上使用,重点主要是各方的道德考虑、理解监管机构的作用以及所使用策略的合法性。然而,这种情况同样适用于管理或战略管理课程,重点是分析用于保持竞争优势的策略。在这两个课程中,为各方进行利益相关者分析也是合适的。一起讨论其中一些主题的讲师应该会发现它特别有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Where’s the yolk – did you just call that mayonnaise?
Research methodology The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations). Case overview/synopsis This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition. Complexity academic level This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CASE Journal
CASE Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (all)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信