Case Study – Background
The Company
Pure Coffee is a chain of coffee shops in Washington DC that is facing increased competition in the marketplace. The well-established national coffee stores are strongly represented throughout the city and now a number of independent coffee shops are opening up in key areas of the city in which the company operates. One small chain is causing concern and attracting customers through its innovative coffee shop design concept, sophisticated marketing, and initial heavy discounting coffee, In addition, one of the well-known national chains has recently won the concession for coffee shops in a renowned chain of the bookstores in the city. Pure Coffee is also worried about the impact on the business of the increasing penetration of high-quality espresso and capsule machines in offices and homes.
Raw materials
The signature product is coffee, which is grown on coffee farms in suitable regions in Southeast Asia, Central and South America, The Caribbean, and Africa. An increase in open “sun-cultivated” production of coffee has caused increased tropical deforestation mono-cropping, and the input of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This type of industrial coffee farming leads to severe environmental problems, such as soil degradation, pesticide pollution, deforestation, and the extinction of wildlife. It takes around five years for a coffee tree to reach maturity when the ripe fruit cherries are harvested and dried, graded by size and weight, and transported for export. Pure Coffee purchases roasted coffee beans form their supplier. The waste coffee grounds are put pout with food waste, although the company knows that the grounds can be used for composting, they have not explored how this could be done on a commercial basis.
Current strategy
A local businessman founded the first coffee shop in 2000 and took out a loan to set up a second shop in 2001, However to obtain the finance necessary to grow the company further, investors were brought on board. Today, there are six Pure Coffee branches in the city. The company’s medium-term ambition is to expand the chain to Baltimore.
Pure Coffee competes well against the well-known high-street brands. It has a reputation for high-quality coffee and a pleasant ambiance; the coffee shops are light and bright, and based on modern Scandinavian design. Pure Coffee markets itself as a local company. The coffee shops sell a good range of hot beverages, along with a standard selection of branded cold drinks. It offers cakes and biscuits, which are freshly made by a local bakery and delivered daily to the shops.
As a result of the market pressures and the downward trend in turnover and profits over the last two quarters, Pure Coffee is reviewing its five-year growth strategy, its positioning in the marketplace, its operating costs and customer pricing structure, and its marketing strategy.
Other factors
The key impacts of the coffee shops are their CO2 emissions form energy used in lightning, heating, air conditioning, refrigerators, coffee-making machines and dishwashers, water for washing and bathroom facilities, tap water for drinking, spent coffee grounds (which are currently collected with food waste), general and recyclable waste, paper takeaway cups, and chemicals for cleaning.
The coffee production process and transportation have environmental impacts, including:
- Using water, fertilisers, and pesticides for gwoing;
- Impacts on soil quality and land use;
- Processing that requires energy and water;
- Generating waste material (pulp, residual matter, and parchment) and wastewater;
- Fuel for transport internationally and nationally; and
- Eenrgy used in roasting the coffee beans.
In sourcing fair trade coffee and tea, Pure Coffee helps to ensure that farmers and workers in the supply chain receive better prices, decent working conditions, and fair terms of trade. The company currently makes a small donation on a yearly basis to an international charity that supports children’s education in Africa and America.
The company is also considering supporting local community projects in the Washington DC area or setting up book clubs in the coffee shops to bring members of the community together one evening per month.
Question 1
Produce a briefing for the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company in your chosen case study. This briefing should include the following points:
- Highlight how the company could become more competitive and resilient to external risks (those associated with the system pressures and trends in the industry of your chosen case study), by systematically addressing unsustainable consumption and production practices relevant to the company and its sector.
- Address the tension between the company’s desire to expand its markets (that is, its growth and profit), and the need to reduce unsustainable global consumption (specifically, the consumption of the company’s clients and customers).
In your briefing, ensure that you highlight two sustainability-related risks for the company at different points along its value chain. The value chain includes all steps in the life cycle of a product or service, eg growing, extracting or sourcing of raw materials; production, processing or manufacturing; transportation and logistics; warehousing and retailing; consumer use or consumption; and waste disposal or recycling.
Identify two corresponding commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits that could be captured in the short and long term by turning these risks into sustainable consumption and production practices.
Structure your briefing so that it includes the following elements:
- Introduction (stating the need to act)
- Risks along the value chain (and justification for why they are significant sustainability risks)
- Opportunities and stakeholder benefits (achieved by addressing and prioritising the risks along the value chain)
- Conclusion (address the tension between profit and expansion, and reducing unsustainable consumption and production).
Question 2
Identify two of the most important areas of your chosen case study company’s supply chain or operations that would benefit from innovation to improve sustainability design (i.e. the application of new technology, product design or business model).
For each area, address the following points to the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) and management board:
- Justify how innovating in this area will promote sustainable business. What are the potential commercial gains and the anticipated wider environmental and societal benefits?
- Identify the barriers to your proposed innovations , and suggest how these might be overcome (at least one barrier per innovation area that you have chosen).
Use practical examples from the case study and other reputable sources, focusing on the company’s particular business sector to support your answer.
(Max. 400 words)
(Max. 400 words)
Module 4 Rubric – Question 1
| No attempt | Does not meet requirements | Limited | Accomplished | Exceeds requirements | Exemplary | |
| Summary of current situation or need to act | (0) | The need to act is not clear or relevant to the case. (1) | The need to act is stated, but may not be directly relevant to the case. (2) | The need to act is clearly stated and relevant to the case. (3) | The need to act is clearly stated and relevant to the case. Some evidence is provided to support the claims. (4) | The need to act is clearly and concisely stated, and relevant to the case. Evidence is provided for all claims, and the introduction is compelling. (5) |
| Identification of two sustainability-related risks along the value chain and justification for why they are significant sustainability risks | (0) | No sustainability-related risks have been identified, or risks are not clear, not sustainability-related or relevant to the case; there is no justification for why they are significant sustainability risks. (2) | One or two sustainability-related risks along the value chain are identified, but these may not be clear or directly relevant. Only one aspect of the value chain is considered, and no or poor justification for why they are significant sustainability risks. (4) | Two sustainability-related risks along the value chain relevant to the case are identified. More than one aspect of the value chain is considered. There is adequate justification for one risk as to why it is a significant sustainability risk. (6) | Two sustainability-related risks along the value chain relevant to the case are identified. More than one aspect of the value chain is considered. There is adequate justification for both risks as to why they are significant sustainability risks. (8) | Two sustainability-related risks along the value chain relevant to the case are identified. More than one aspect of the value chain is considered. The risks are also prioritised. There is adequate justification for both risks as to why they are significant sustainability risks. (10) |
| Identification of two commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits | (0) | Commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits are not clear or relevant to the case or to production and consumption practices. (2) | One or two commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits are identified, but these may be vague or not directly relevant to the case or to production and consumption practices. (4) | Two commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits are identified and explained, and these are relevant to the case and to production and consumption practices. (6) | Two commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits are identified and explained. These are relevant to the case and to production and consumption practices, and both short- and long-term opportunities are considered. (8) | Two commercial opportunities and related stakeholder benefits are identified. These are relevant to the case and to production and consumption practices. Both short- and long-term opportunities are considered equally, and the argument for these opportunities is persuasive. (10) |
| Tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices | (0) | The tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices is not evident in the conclusion. (1) | The tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices is mentioned, but this may not be directly relevant to the case or appropriately interpreted. (2) | The tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices is clearly stated and relevant to the case. (3) | The tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices is clearly stated and relevant to the case. A clear link is made to the risks and opportunities identified in the briefing. (4) | The tension between profit and growth, and reducing unsustainable production and consumption practices is clearly stated and relevant to the case. A clear link is made to the risks and opportunities identified in the briefing, and the briefing is a compelling and practical call to action. (5) |
| Organisation of writing | (0) | The answers lack coherent structure, and the text is difficult to follow. Over the word limit by more than 50%. References to supporting literature are largely missing. (1) | The answers are somewhat logically structured but need a more coherent approach. Over the word limit by 10% to 50%. References to supporting literature are largely missing. (2) | The answers have a coherent structure and are clearly formulated. Within 10% of the word count limit. Some relevant references to supporting literature are included. (3) | The answers are well structured into a coherent narrative that effectively highlights key points. Within the word count limit. Strong references to supporting literature are included throughout. (4) | The answers are expertly formulated and structured into a compelling narrative that succinctly highlights key points. Within the word count limit. Extensive and appropriate references to supporting literature are included throughout. (5) |
Module 4 Rubric – Question 2
| No attempt | Does not meet requirements | Limited | Accomplished | Exceeds requirements | Exemplary | |
| Identification and justification of two most important aspects of company’s supply chain or operations that would benefit from investment and innovation | (0) | Some attempt is made to identify an aspect that would benefit from investment and innovation, but this may not be relevant to the case or appropriately interpreted, with no justification provided. (1) | Brief mention of one or two aspects that would benefit from investment and innovation, with some attempt made to establish a link to the case, but this may not be directly relevant. Some attempt is made to justify the selected aspects’ importance, but this may be incomplete or unclear. (2) | Two aspects that would benefit from investment and innovation are identified, with clear justification as to why one of them is the most relevant to the industry outlined in the selected case. (3) | Two relevant aspects that would benefit from investment and innovation are identified, with evidence-based justification of why these are most relevant for the industry outlined in the selected case. Only relevant detail is included. (4) | Clear and concise explanation of the two most pertinent aspects that would benefit from investment and innovation, with clear, nuanced and evidence-based justification for why these are most relevant to the industry outlined in the selected case. (5) |
| Discussion of design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques the company could use to create a more sustainable business | (0) | Some attempt is made to identify design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques to address the aspects that would benefit from innovation identified. Tools and approaches do not relate directly to the two aspects identified. Explanation of relevance to case is not provided. (2) | Brief discussion of design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques, with some attempt made to explain relevance to case, but this may not be clear or complete. The tools and approaches are not considered in light of the aspects that would benefit from innovation. (4) | Design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques relevant to the case are identified, with explanation of their relevance to the aspects that would benefit from innovation. (6) | Design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques relevant to the case are identified, with justification from the case as to why these are most relevant to the two aspects that would benefit from innovation. Specific examples are used to make the point. (8) | Design approaches, tools, frameworks or techniques relevant to the case, and that are applicable to the aspects that would benefit from innovation, are identified, ritised and coupled with nuanced and evidence-based justification from the case and other sources for why these are most relevant and beneficial for the industry in the case. (10) |
| Argument and justification for how innovating in the selected two aspects of the company will promote sustainability (from a commercial, social and environmental standpoint) | (0) | Some attempt is made to make the commercial, social and environmental case for innovation. Reasons may not be relevant to the case or theoretically sound. (2) | Attempt is made to make the commercial, social and environmental case for innovation, with some attempt to link to case, but this may not be directly relevant. Answer may be too generic (i.e. not tailored to the company). (4) | Sound argument is made for the commercial, social and environmental case for innovation, with clear justification as to why one of them would be of benefit to the industry outlined in the selected case. (6) | Good argument is made for the commercial, social and environmental case for innovation, with evidence-based justification from the case and other sources of why the reasons are most relevant for the industry outlined in the selected case. (8) | Excellent argument is made for the commercial, social and environmental case for innovation, with clear, nuanced and evidence-based justification from the case and other sources for why the reasons are most relevant to the industry outlined in the selected case. (10) |
| Identification of barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches, and a suggestion as to how these barriers might be overcome | (0) | Some attempt is made to identify barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches, but these barriers may not be relevant or theoretically sound. Suggestions to overcome these barriers are provided, but they may not be relevant or theoretically sound. OR: No attempt is made to provide suggestions as to how the barriers might be overcome. (2) | Some attempt is made to identify barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches. Suggestions to overcome these barriers are provided, but they may be incomplete or unclear. (4) | Relevant barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches are identified. Relevant and theoretically-sound suggestions to overcome these barriers are identified. (6) | The two most pertinent barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches are identified. Evidence-based, relevant and theoretically-sound suggestions to overcome these barriers are identified. (8) | The two most pertinent barriers to new, more radical innovation or the optimisation of existing approaches are identified. Evidence-based, relevant and theoretically-sound suggestions to overcome these barriers are identified and the suggestions present a novel way to overcome these barriers. (10) |
| Organisation of writing | (0) | The answers lack coherent structure, and the text is difficult to follow. Over the word limit by more than 50%. References to supporting literature are largely missing. (1) | The answers are somewhat logically structured but need a more coherent approach. Over the word limit by 10% to 50%. References to supporting literature are largely missing. (2) | The answers have a coherent structure and are clearly formulated. Within 10% of the word count limit. Some relevant references to supporting literature are included. (3) | The answers are well structured into a coherent narrative that effectively highlights key points. Within the word count limit. Strong references to supporting literature are included throughout. (4) | The answers are expertly formulated and structured into a compelling narrative that succinctly highlights key points. Within the word count limit. Extensive and appropriate references to supporting literature are included throughout. (5) |
