Blog on the Corner

Today in class we talked about the IPAT formula and we discussed that increases in technology (sustainable technology) is the answer to our problems.  One example of the increase in technology for sustainability is the harnessing of kinetic energy.  Designer Jung Inyoung has created a suitcase which stores kinetic energy from the rolling of the wheels to charge cellphones on the go.  It is technology like this that will decrease our impact on the environment and for future generations. One issue that I see with this idea is the battery and how the battery is recycled or reused.  If the battery life for the suitcase can also be long and the battery can be sustainably recycled than the impact of this technology is truly amazing.

I hope to see large manufacturers working with Jung Inyoung to implement this suitcase and show some corporate social responsibility.I would love to here what everyone else thinks about this idea and if they see any flaws or opportunities that this idea generates.

In my three years here at UBC I have heard these three words more times than I can count, Corporate Social Responsibility.  Interestingly enough every time the subject comes up I learn something new and my stance towards CSR changes.  Now this can mean two things, I am very easily persuaded or CSR is still a growing concept that hasn’t fully been proven or dis-proven.  When I was first introduced to the concept I thought that CSR was definitely something that firms should be practicing and that it was a important on a moral level for society.  My stance changed after I read a paper on CSR in my Government and Business class.  The paper argued (I forget the name) that a firm who purely seeks to maximize profit will also be socially responsible if that is what the shareholders want.  In other words because being socially responsible improves the profit for the firm, a profit maximizing firm will be socially responsible as long as it is held accountable by the public.  This argument brought new light to what I thought CSR was.  Later in my Business Writing course we did a paper on CSR and again I learned more about the topic as we watched numerous videos showing scholar’s debating the two sides of CSR.  So then, what is my answer to the questions “Should firms practice CSR?” Well my answer is, it depends.  A firm, such as an oil company, who can drastically alter the environment with bad practices must use CSR because the costs of the potential damages, both monetary and social, outweigh the benefits.  On the other end of the spectrum, firms who’s practices have little impact need not take a huge role in CSR (assuming that CSR cost firms more).

Wow, haven’t been on here in forever.  I am now taking a course in Sustainable Marketing which also requires a blog.  I actually like that my course requires a blog, I want to get back to blogging and now I have a reason to start again.

More posts to come

Cheers

Billy