Facts:

• Ugochi, a serial entrepreneur, launched a social venture to give these vulnerable youth a voice and build their confidence to become employable and responsible adults.
• Over a period of five years, Spikey’s tax-free donation increased from $2 Million to $6 Million, which enabled thousands of young people from over 20 cities to participate.
• Due to Spikey’s sponsorship, gone were the workshops on finding purpose and building community. There were no professional headshots or rope courses to build teamwork skills. But there was more soccer, more competitive than ever, and for many more youth.
• The manufacturer Spikey’s shoes in Cambodia employ children under the age of 12 at their facilities. 
• One contractor restricts employment to 20 hours a week and, through their “study to-work program,” mandates that children attend an on-campus school before they are allowed to work and support their families.
• The other two contractors expect the children to work upwards of 60 hours a week and provide no educational benefits.

Stakeholders and motivation:

• Ugochi: Wants to help as many people as possible.
• Kids in Cambodia: Want better conditions of life and need the money.
• Kids participating in the program: Want to play soccer and have better conditions of life.
• Spikey: Keep a good image and gain more customers. 
• Future sponsorship: be seen as better than Spikey.
• Past partners: see the kids thrive and succeed.
• SYE-T: help the kids have a better life.
• Local businesses: the ability to hire the kids. 

Ethical Issues: 

• Money comes from a company that employs children who work 50+ hours a week. 
• If we refuse Spikey, fewer people can participate in the program 
• If we continue with Spikey, the program’s initial purpose is lost and the focus is turned purey into playing soccer. 
• Spikey is doing what SYT is trying to solve, kids there are also stuck in the poverty cycle, they can’t study, play, etc. 

Risks

If you take the money, there is a reputational risk, but if you don’t, it might cost the entire organization. Saying no might not change anything at Spikey; by not taking the money, you are not helping anyone. Other organizations might not want to work with you, if they know you are working with Spikey. 

Three Alternative Solutions:

Solution 1: 

• Potential Solution: Expose Spikey’s work ethic and intentions. 
• How does it solve the problem? Being transparent with our public can attract other, more ethical, sponsors and also make people more patient with the changes occurring to the program.
• Pros: Other sponsors. Possibly more funds than with Spikey. People will know we stay truthful to our morals. Past partners might come back.
• Cons: Possibility of being sued by Spikey. Other big sponsors might be scared to work with us. 

Solution 2: 

• Potential Solution: Look for other sponsors and break the partnership with Spikey when we can afford to.
• How does it solve the problem? We keep the program running until we have enough sponsors to cover the funds they give us. 
• Pros: The kids don’t have to suffer from lack of funds. Program keeps on going. We can find more ethical partners. We can bring back old partners and workshops. 
• Cons: May take a long time. 

Solution 3: 

• Potential Solution: Continue with Spikey and use part of the money to pay for the things we lost, such as workshops and headshots. 
• How does it solve the problem? We have enough funds to continue the program and the kids get the past benefits back. 
• Pros: The initial purpose of the organization is brought back. The kids can enjoy both sides of the program. Spikey will likely increase their donations, giving us more opportunity to help the children. 
• Cons: We are still working with an unethical company.