First Nations meet with Prime Minister Harper to talk over B.C’s need of new energy and capacity.

Years ago, breakfast segment was the heaven for McDonald with hardly any competitors. However, it now faces serious competition as a number of rivals have stepped up their game in the breakfast segment.

McDonalds is trying to consolidate its breakfast segment by testing out new pastries. McDonalds will need to work extremely hard in delivering their value proposition to this segment they’re targeting at.

Proctor & Gamble Co. (P&G) – the world’s largest consumer company is planning on a major strategic shift in product management. Lafley (who was rehired as CEO since last year) decided to  cut up more than 100 brands from the company’s enormous profile in order to focus on the 70-80 brands that take up majority percentage of revenues.

The company’s goal for this decision is “simplify operations to improve results”. Lafley suggested that consumers in the present days want simpler and more convenient lifestyles, meaning then would want rapid choices without distraction, especially when they purchase online or in bulk. However, P&G is gambling with the assumption that consumers are overwhelmed and confused by many options provided to them, but what if that’s not the case? As an online shopper, I believe the whole purpose of this business was actually to offer more choices to buyers, and buyers do enjoy navigating and selecting between options. This leads me to thinking, while the practice of value proposition in thinking about consumers’ perspectives is useful, it may lead a company in the wrong path if we assume wrongly about consumers’ opinions.

I think this move will definitely lead to a short-run loss for the company as they’re losing income from smaller brands and would not have had enough time to establish new improvements for the bigger brands. With the reduction of so many brands, I wonder what will happen to P&G Brand Power; will it status remain as #1 largest consumer products company? Deciding what and how many to produce is one of the biggest questions in Operation Sector, and I hope P&G had consider all of these mentioned risks before implementation this action.

According to scientists at PennState University, the oil spilled from British Petroleum’s Gold of Mexico oil derrick had not disappeared. This article pointed out a very compelling fact about oil spills: there is a cycle to it. A spill would occurred, creating massive ecological devastation, different parties debating about who should be responsible for the consequences, leading to a calming statement that  the oil will eventually go away, but the big question is where to? This emphasizes on the importance of taking social responsibilities; obviously “the oil will disappear” is just an excuse for businesses to avoid paying excessive recovery costs.

Because of high damages that oil spills cost, the Oil Pollution Act requires any company importing more than 150,000 tons of oil annually contribute toward a fund to help pay for damages not covered by traditional insurance or owner’s liability. This directly aligned with the topic discussed in the reading “Social Responsibility of Businesses”, how consumers have to indirectly pay for the high costs due to concerns for social problems as a whole. Furthermore, the irony fact is that while Oil Companies have to pre-pay for any spills damage they may cost, no one is enforcing regulations on the everyday damage of greenhouse effect gases! 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/05/oil-companies-british-petroleum-should-pay-oil-spills-pollution-greenhouse-gas