Coca-cola has recently released a special new product to their arsenal. A newly packaged cola with a dark green shade to symbolize healthy living. This new addition to the roster has been released after Coca-Cola has witnessed a decline in soft drinks.

This attempt is in order to increase sales as the company looks to improve and promote public health because parents dislike their children to have unhealthy diets.

In light of this promotion, although arguably for a good cause, I have two problems. Firstly, for promoting a healthy green life, I’d have expected a bright and vibrant green so that catches the attention of consumers. However, the colour of the can is a dull mossy green which in my opinion, doesn’t represent the message that coke is trying to send out.

Secondly, was there actually a point in creating the coke life brand? The existing coke light and coke zero are already substitutes for the regular coke and is much healthier in terms of calorie intake. What was the reason behind coke light? Coke life cannot possible replace the current coke and the company would be out of their mind to hope that it would.

Therefore, this is likely just a scheme to steer consumers into thinking that Coca Cola is a health conscious company. However as usual, the advertisement for the new coke is spectacular and as a consumer, I’d be drawn towards the drink. In conclusion, so although the reasoning behind the new product seems flawed, the advertisement and marketing team covered it and made the new coke life seem like a great new breakthrough.

Articles:

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled/coca-cola-life-to-make-us-debut

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/11/coca-cola-fewer-calories-less-sugar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRqUTA6AegA

” If  the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise”?

The UN is a global institute that promotes international cooperation. The UN funds humanitarian aid to less economically developed countries (LEDCs) to help develop infrastructure to improve standards of living. The 10 millennium development goal is a long term project that strives towards eradicating poverty and promoting basic human rights and gender equality. However, there are shortcomings to all the great things that the UN does.

The UN is a massive organization and provides a very diverse range of services to countries. This can be seen as one of the shortcomings because unlike social enterprises, they’re not focused enough to help specific groups in need consistently. Most humanitarian aids given are one time payments that are semi-regular. Aid for development is often needed as a long term investment and social enterprises are able to devote that attention needed.

Secondly, sadly, financial aid given by the UN goes to the government of the LEDCs, which is prone to corruption. There is no guarantee that 100% of the funding will reach where it needs to be. Social enterprises are direct givers to the communities.

Social enterprises are fundamentally businesses, so the better they do, more social aspects are improved. After watching many videos on the skoll foundation playlist from the recommended reading, it has opened my eyes to a different side of business, one that I seem to prefer. Social enterprises aren’t necessarily profit driven and furthermore, they are very innovative and can use their on technology to help those in need.

Articles:

http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative

Upward Arc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkGBlclgwaE&list=PL9F69D01868AEDD4E (watch)

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_porter_why_business_can_be_good_at_solving_social_problems?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=ted&utm_medium=on.ted.com-static&awesm=on.ted.com_Porter&utm_content=awesm-publisher (watch twice)

Today’s post is about what seems to be a  “massive criminal securities fraud” within one of the world’s largest multinational bank.

A massive payout of NINE BILLION was given to witness Alayne Fleischmann, a lawyer from JP Morgan Chase to keep her from talking. This is all an attempt to cover up for possibly one of the largest white-collar case yet.

This was after she found out that her company was selling sub-prime mortgages. Alayne says “I could lose my license to practice law. I could lose everything. But if we don’t start speaking up, then this really is all we’re going to get: the biggest financial cover-up in history.”

This is an incredibly shocking story and the ethical conducts of the company’s operations comes into question. It is simply unethical to give bad mortgages and loans out, especially when it was a large cause of the financial crisis of 2008.  Have they not learnt?

Fact of the matter is that companies may just commit illegal crimes in order to earn more money and make more sales. However, this situation affects the WORLD if anything goes sour.

For me, i feel that some industries have dark backgrounds. Whilst many glorifies their reputations through CSR, I can’t help but imagine the secrets behind companies that they’re keeping from the general public. As you can see here that JP Morgan was willing to pay such large sums of money in order to cover up their crimes. This also comes to show the importance of company image.

I really do hope that the truth comes out and adequate punishment is given for their crimes.

Articles:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/08/whistleblower_jp_morgan_chase_paid_9_billion_to_keep_me_silent_about_its_crimes_partner/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824580/Witness-s-testimony-powerful-forced-9-billion-settlement-JP-Morgan-reveals-bank-giant-s-schemes-swindle-investors-selling-worthless-mortgages.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IRCXIJE2

Contrary to the general consensus of class 19, CEO Jim Clifton disagrees that customer satisfaction is not important for a business to succeed. This blog post is a response to Jim Clifton’s blog itself.

His argument is based on his belief that employees aren’t fundamentally motivated by fringe benefits because he believes that employees don’t want to be satisfied as much as they want to be engaged. He claims that an engaged employee “engaged employees who took less than one week off from work in a year had 25% higher overall well-being than actively disengaged associates”. 

What means being engaged? I interpreted engagement as proactively working and having the initiative to do work because the employee is passionate about the industry and it fits well with his/her personality. I think Jim believes that being enthusiastic about the job itself is more important than artificially satisfying employees to like the job.

I personally think whilst Jim’s view isn’t entirely true, it is also not wrong. I think this is dependent on the organizational culture of the company, from the pulsepress portion in class. i defined organizational culture as the natural formation of employee behavior, culture and attitudes that shouldn’t be forcefully implemented. This is because the company is formed by the employees, although the CEO is responsible for guiding the company, he shouldn’t be forcing a way the company operates because that will cause companies to stick to one way and less able to change.

This is how some companies function because different industries may have different attitude. In the case of Zappos, a predominantly service oriented market, the social aspects of the company is more important than a production oriented company because of the intensive stress that consumers can give to call center employees. Therefore, providing a lot of motivation schemes is greatly beneficial to the mental health of employees.

To conclude, i think employee satisfaction is an important aspect of the firm but more importantly, being in the correct environment in an industry that you’re passionate about is paramount.

Articles (very very interesting reads):

http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2014/10/why-being-engaged-at-work-isnt-as.html

http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2014/06/employee-satisfaction-doesnt-matter.html

Along the global topics of deforestation and global warming, over fishing joins the party so that all land, sea and sky are in dire straits. Over fishing may not have been as heavily emphasized as global warming but it is definitely a fast growing threat.

Firstly, this is the phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons, an economic term that describes a resource being abused by people because it is free and no one owns the right to stop people from using the resource.

Fishing boats have been non-stop hoarding fish in order to supply enough for the global population. However, the price to pay is that this has caused many species to dwindle in number and caused many to be near endangered. Ethically, this is unacceptable because it is unjust to purposefully over fish when most clearly know that the species is endangered. Fishermen are profit driven and because it doesn’t affect them directly, they  do not care.

One more thing to note is that according to the article, there are many cases of abuse on fishing boats which is probably due to the large amount of illegal workers employed. A large number of workers were forcefully enslaved against their will and suffer terrible living conditions. Its disheartening to read and the subject of human rights come into question.

The industry is very murky and have very questionable ethical operations. I personally think that action must be taken especially on malpractices like shark fin hunting, whaling and extreme quantities of fishing. The problem lies on how international law works on seas and how these criminals can be caught.

Prices of fish are predicted to skyrocket because this large amount of fishing is simply not sustainable. With the supply of fish taking a big hit, price will bound to rise and “the era of cheap fish is over”

So i guess, you reap what you sow?

Article:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1633380/era-cheap-fish-over-says-expert-industry-forced-tackle-slavery-and

Look also:

http://overfishing.org/

This blog is a response to Charmaine’s recent post on a corporate decision made by the Rockefeller group to phase out of fossil fuels.

I definitely agree with some of the points that she has expressed in her blog. The large move of converting from oil and gas to investing in renewable energy is very commendable and the pledge serves a big step into achieving sustainable development.

The importance of sustainability is heavily emphasized and ties in with positive business ethics, both of which the Rockefeller group manages to obtain with this decision. The change targets two of  the triple bottom line, social and environment which is greatly improved in the long run. As Charmaine said, this creates shared value for the Rockefeller group and it’s good to see companies that care about the environment and is proactive about preserving it.

However, the only thing I question is the plausibility and the threats of this change. Firstly, the world’s current technology in renewable energy sources is not perfected and greatly inefficient when compared to non-renewable sources. In a business point of view, this represents a bad investment until better technology is invented, especially when only 7% of the world’s energy output is in renewable energy sources. This also puts the business at a worse standing point as they’ll be at a comparative disadvantage against companies who haven’t switched yet.

Secondly, the plausibility of switching also comes in question. Although this brings a bunch of positive publicity to the firm, I personally don’t think it’s a realistic decision, unless, the pledge makes use of the word “phasing”. This “phasing” out may take decades as the company slowly transitions into investing in renewable sources as the technology to more efficiently produce energy is invented. That would be a great move!

The purpose of this blog is not to discourage the positive intentions of sustainable development but to question the plausibility of such actions due to our world’s limited technology.

See also: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475