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

Even if the United Nations (UN) was a fully funded organization, social enterprises like the Arc initiative would still be a vital part of the business landscape. The reason being is that the UN’s focus is predominately on encouraging international diplomacy and therefore requires any initiative to clear a mass of bureaucratic red tape before any boots can touch the ground and any real work can truly be done. However, initiatives and social ventures such as the Arc initiative are not bound by the same international regulations and can quickly get on the ground and start doing their work without the major bureaucratic hassle.

Social enterprises are also far more effective at organizing resources then the UN. Seeing as the UN relies heavily on the donations of financial capital and equipment from its member countries it can be very difficult for the UN to quickly mobilize and carry out an initiative. Social enterprises however have to be, for the most part, completely independent in terms of the money they spend and the equipment they use, therefore they can organize the various factors of their service quickly and effectively. Looking at the scale of most social ventures in comparison to the initiatives undertaken by the UN you can see that the UN focuses on national issues which require more moving parts and therefore take more time, energy, and money to organize then the smaller, local initiatives taken on by social enterprises.

It is because of these three key reasons that social enterprises, regardless of if the UN was fully funded or not, remain an important part of the social business landscape and are very effective at filling in the gaps overlooked by the United Nations.

Social Venture Partners logo.

Businesses are becoming more socially aware and responsible across all industry sectors, most notably in Finance where a whole new type of venture capitalism that focuses on investing that is not based off of returns, but off of impact has taken root. Take Social Venture Partners (SVP)[1], a social enterprise that combines the best of both philanthropy and venture capitalism to create a unique “virtuous capital” approach that provides the necessary start-up or maintenance investment to local, community based charity organizations that perpetuate SVP’s social vision. So far the SVP idea has been taken across the globe with localized SVP branches in 38 cities from Boston to Bangalore and with more and more investment and capital management firm shifting their focus from high return to high reward.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has for sometime been a very important point of difference in the consumer goods industry, however this difference has never truly been explored in the buy low sell high world of finance. But, with the emergence of groups such as SVP and financial institutions that focus on CSR it is finally time for CSR and the capital rich industry of finance to be combined and create real change in communities across the globe.

[1] http://www.socialventurepartners.org/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8rUSsDeog

This is a response to Talise Tsai’s blog post, “The Face of Loblaw’s”

https://blogs.ubc.ca/talise/2014/10/04/loblaws-regional-positioning-strategy/

The main portfolio companies owned by parent company Berkshire Hathaway.

Loblaw’s, as with many large scale retailers and holdings companies such as Cerberus Capital Management and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. implement the use of varying brand names for its stores and subsidiaries in order to ‘break up’ the companies image allowing different stores owned by the same umbrella corporation to specialize within the market. This idea of varying company names makes sense from both a business and marketing perspective. Imagine if all of the companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway all shared the same name. Not only would this be a very overwhelming experience for consumers who would purchase everything from their Heinz ketchup to their GIECO insurance from one company. This would also be a very difficult situation from a marketing perspective because marketing one big conglomerate effectively would be next to impossible. Therefore by breaking up the company’s image you can effectively market each individual product in its own respective market, stressing the products unique points of difference and market value.

From a financial point of view a parent company is an effective way to maintain a companies status as a secure investment because of its diversified subsidiaries. Meaning that because a large holdings company such as Berkshire Hathaway is very well diversified and owns companies that compete in a variety of industries so if one industry or market crashes it won’t bankrupt the parent company.

Understandably with the business landscape becoming more and more competitive companies are turning to unique –and in some ways morally questionable- methods to gain that competitive advantage over the rest of and industry. Take the North American retail giant Target as an example. In the early 2000’s Target unveiled a comprehensive “Guest ID” program that comprised all of a shoppers relevant user data under a single Guest ID, this information included the competition Target faced in the customers geographical area, the type of items they purchased, how they purchased them, etc. Target then used this data to predict what the consumer would purchase in the future and then send user specific coupons and flyers based off of that analysis.

Soon this Guest ID program was so effective that Target wanted to know even more about what consumers where going to purchase before they wanted to purchase it. Specifically they targeted expecting mothers, a group that statistically spent the most per visit at target. In order to achieve this Target created a ‘pregnancy index’ that analyzed consumer-buying habits in order to determine if an individual consumer was an expecting. Eventually, Target’s analysis got so specific that Target, to the surprise of a very concerned father, had predicted a woman’s pregnancy before she even knew she was pregnant [1].

It is this unruly obsession with data that raises some questions about the morality of major companies tracking customer data. To some extent these programs are an unfair infringement on consumers who just want to complete a shopping list and do not want to be apart of some corporate analysis that looks to exploit their wants in order to boost sales and consumer retention. However, these monitoring programs to provide some marginal benefits to the consumers that they monitor, In the case of Target, the Guest ID program provided consumers with coupons they would actually use decreasing consumer search time for a good at a lower price. As with most business ethics issues there it is not a matter of right or wrong but a matter of degree and we as consumers have to, on a case-by-case basis, evaluate how much we want participate in these consumer analysis programs.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ 

Usually technology startups focus on building a cheap, and in some ways “people-less” organizational structure in order to cut salary costs and to scale growth far quicker and with fewer employees. That however, is not the case for Florida based startup OpenEnglish, which is a peer-to-peer learning platform that teaches English to Spanish speaking individuals. The unique problem faced by OpenEnglish is as mentioned above, because they required more and more teachers in order to scale up the company, thus increasing the company’s employee costs and bringing down the companies overall profit.

In order to maintain the companies profits OpenEnglish has turned to a unique venture capital and advertising approach that allows them to generate substantial consumer buzz through unique marketing purchased through the use of there venture capital funds. This approach is a major disruption in the tech start-up industry and the success of OpenEnglish is a testament to the effectiveness of a people oriented organizational structure in the technology world. The true disruptiveness of OpenEnglish’s business model has many technology companies that look to provide a similar service to consumers reevaluating their automated and people-less services and attempting to adopt the OpenEnglish business structure.

The very nature of the technology industry is disruptive to the rest of the market, however the scale of disruption has usually been focused on some new advancement in social networking or computer services. Therefore it is very unique that OpenEnglish’s point of disruption is in its organizational structure and not necessarily in the service it offers.

This is a response to Heidi Upham’s blog post, “Ben and Jerry’s – More Than Just Ice Cream”

A worker at Foxconn.

Ben and Jerry’s, and the Unilever criticism highlights the importance of corporate responsibility and the value that consumers put on a concise and ubiquitous brand image, even when it comes to that companies suppliers, subsidiaries or parent companies.

In recent years it has become of greater importance to the consumer that from idea to production a consumer good, weather it be ice cream or an iPhone, has to be ethically and morally unimpeachable. Take the Foxconn scandal that blindsided Apple when dozens of Foxconn employees committed suicide. Surprisingly, instead of directing the majority of criticism at Foxconn for its poor working standards consumers and the media targeted Apple stating that the company should be insuring that its manufacturers are using proper working conditions[1]. This may have come as a shock to Apple seeing as they were relatively powerless when it came to drastically changing another companies internal operations however, when faced with the criticism Apple was quick to save face and initiated a campaign to enforce worker safety in Foxconn factories.

This idea of a through and through corporate social responsibility from idea to production should be of the upmost importance to consumers. By holding not only major companies such as Foxconn accountable, but also holding those who employ Foxconns services, such as Apple, accountable the business landscape will shift and more individuals will benefit from increased worker safety and socially responsible products.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/12/apples-new-foxconn-embarrassment/ 

In the past two years (2012 to 2014) Google has spent billions on corporate acquisitions. Most notably of which the Robotics company Boston Dynamics and the smart home innovator Nest Labs.

It seems that everyday in business news we hear about the acquisition of a smaller company by a larger, more established company. Consider Facebook’s equation of Oculus VR, Google’s acquisition of Nest Labs[1], and Apple’s acquisition of Beat. All of these examples demonstrate a mega company buying an idea, instead of creating one. My question regarding these acquisitions is simply is this good for the market?

We all understand that when competition is limited in a specific market monopolies arise and compromise the principles of supply and demand by artificially decreasing supply in order to increase price and thereby increase corporate profits. It’s clear to see that as these tech giants fight for supremacy in the market they make it harder and harder for new players to enter the game because, as these companies have demonstrated they acquire every idea that poses a threat to their continued success. Thus it appears that the technology industry has shifted its focus from innovation to acquisition[2]. This change in strategy, at least on the part of corporate giants such as Microsoft, Apple and Google, carries with it sever complications for the market and for the future of technology. As more and more of the competition is obtained by these giants the market will become more and more concentrated and eventually, if things remain the same, there will be only one of these companies left standing and one of the most prosperous industries will be come one of the most detrimental monopolies.

[1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/googles-recent-acquisitions-robots-welcome

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/25/the-age-of-acquisitions/

An interesting thing happened in the world of company policies today. Virgin Group’s Founder, Sir Richard Branson unveiled of a company wide policy allowing employees to take an ‘unlimited holiday’[1], meaning that employees are free to take as many days off in a year as they like, provided they are up to date with all their work. The idea, Branson admits, came from silicone valley giants like Apple and Google, where offices and corporate culture focus to make work, less like work by providing employees with services and amenities. The move hopes to encourage and develop a relationship of trust between the company and the employees, making the workplace more casual and less restrictive.[2]

This is an interesting corporate policy strategy because it changes the established company-employee paradigm at Virgin, making employees more focused on achievement and efficiency rather than just being at work because they have to. I think that this is a smart move on the part of Virgin because it will not only attract prospective employees to Virgin but also encourage current employees to work more efficiently so that they can take more time off work thus providing Virgin with a competitive edge because of increased efficiency.

[1] Perkins, Anne. “Richard Branson’s ‘unlimited Holiday’ Sounds Great – until You Think about It.” The Guardian. Theguardian.com, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

[2]Prynne, Miranda. “Why Richard Branson Allows Employees To Take Unlimited Holiday Leave.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Apple CEO, Tim Cook, unveils the iPhone 6 to a packed house at Apple’s September 9th event at its headquarters in Cupertino, California.

With apples much anticipated release of the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch, many consumers –including myself – are left unimpressed[1] with Apple’s recent entries into the consumer electronics market[2]. The name Apple has long since been synonymous with innovation, quality, and unparalleled user experience however, after the death of Apple’s longtime CEO and founder Steve Jobs the company seems to have lost the focus that made its products so desirable, and the brand so enviable by its competitors.[3] The sudden shift in company focus is evident in apples attempts to ‘fit the market’, something that it never did before. Take Apples unveiling of products such as the iPad Mini and iPhone 5C that targeted the lower price range and open apple up to a larger pool of potential consumers.  For me this really contradicted the image that apple had spent years prior trying to cultivate and maintain, one ultimately of luxury and exclusivity. What I mean by exclusivity is that Apple would, as it did with the original iPhone, all the way up the to the iPhone 5, was release only one technically innovative and new product for an entire market. And because apples products where for the most part, superior to anything else available, consumers would pay the premium price, even if they didn’t come in a specific color, screen size, or with particular features that were offered by its competitors. As you can see now, Apples focus has shifted to creating a variety of products that fit the market and the company has grown content with advancing the same thing[4]. Instead of doing one thing amazing, reaching for the next breakthrough in hardware or software, Apple now focuses on doing four or five things well; simply updating rather than innovating.[5]

[1] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/consumers-not-impressed-apple-watch-163519457.html

[2] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/consumers-not-impressed-apple-watch-163519457.html

[3] http://www.cnbc.com/id/101087596#.

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/iphone5s-apple-given-up-innovation

[5] http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/04/18/7-reasons-apple-is-more-doomed-than-you-think/

In business the pressure of competition often leads to unethical oversights in product production. For example, consider the 1997 Ford Pinto case in which over 180 people died or were seriously injured in car accidents due to an executive decision to forgo fixing the cars faulty gas tank in order to beat other competitors to market. These careless decisions that put people in danger violate the intangible consumer-producer relationship in which, the consumer trusts that the producer has produced a product that is above all safe and of quality manufacturing.

To often in our highly competitive global market place companies compromise their ethical integrity in order to cut corners and save costs. Consider the appalling example of the April 23rd 2013 Savar factory collapse, in which 1129 workers were killed. This example highlights two areas of unethical business practices: The first being the application of sweatshop labor in order to cut costs and increase competition in the market, and the second being the equally unethical way in which transnational corporations take advantage of small, economically frail countries. Again, these unethical practices violate the consumer-producer contract putting lives at risk in order to cut costs and increase profits.