On Tuesday Nov 13, a bylaw was passed that cleared the way for an intermunicipal business licence to be obtained by small businesses in the tri-city area (Coquitlam, PoCo, and PoMo). This licence is a great way to support local businesses, granting small businesses to operate within all three tricites under only a single operating permit. This will obviously help family businesses to expand with less cost, and better service the population. Many people in the tricities, myself included, are familiar with the entire area, and consistently intertravel between them to shop at specialized stores ie Typhoon Tayler’s Sports, etc. By reducing the barriers to expand, it is predicted that 10% of currently single-permit owning businesses will upgrade to the IBC, therefore making access to their stores more convenient. Looking forward to the streets being less congested and the community runnning that much smoother, I believe this is a step in the right direction, with little drawbacks and clear benefits to many.

Reference: The Now, Friday Nov. 16th, 2012 Edition

Business is by definition unethical. And nowhere is this more evident than by the degree and velocity damage is being accumulating against our oceans. It has been found that our previous estimates of ocean life species may be off by a factor of 10, representing just how little we know about our oceans, which only accentuates the possibility that we are extremely underestimating how negatively affective pollution and other unethical practices are to the ocean, but also to the environment as a whole. Many people believe that businesses should focus on maximizing profits within the laws set by government, and forget about thinking ethical. It is wrong to think this. Businesses should be MORE conscious of the environment- way more than any individual should be, because their impact is astronomically greater than that of an individual. Government is moving at a snail’s pace to go green, and all regulations being imposed are pathetic as far as what needs to be done. By the time they do anything, businesses, among other causes, will have the world suffocating in sludge and smog. Why? Because the government too just wants money… we’re waiting for those who are indifferent to the environment’s well-being to take initiative to save it against their stronger will (which is to make money, in case you are unfamiliar with governments). They focus so much on money, putting money above everything else, when, in reality, it’s not even a real thing. Money is not tangible. Oceans are real. Forests are real. Money is not. Capitalism by its current definition is going to drive the world into hell faster than any amount of money will be able to reverse. Money is important in our world today, but not at the expense of our world. Anyone who thinks otherwise has unfortunately had their brain knocked right-side around.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/marine-species-registry-reveals-just-little-know-oceans-223549003.html

Re: Staples Struggling for Growth. The rundown on the original article is basically: Staples must go to extreme measures to increase profits in times of market-share decline. The blog goes on to address specifically how competitors such as Wal-mart and online distributors ie Amazon are biting a little too much of Staple’s consumer base for their comfort. This issue, however, is obviously not unique to Staples. Even a decade ago, specialty stores co-existed with larger, multi-product distributors, due to their greater range of specialty products. Fast forward today, and information and transportation are exploding almost faster than the market can keep up with, and broad product-range distributors are gobbling up the opportunities to expand with greater ease than ever before. Retailers/wholesalers such as Wal-mart, Costco, etc, are finding it easier than ever to sell an ever-increasing variety of products: Wal-mart’s recent grocery department, for example. And many specialty stores that cannot so easily expand are feeling the crunch. People are increasingly opting to shop at places where they can get the majority of their shopping done at to save both time, and, if the retailer is know for fair prices, good value. It’s just more convinient. Specialty stores such as, but no limited to, Staples, don’t really have anywhere to go in terms of expansion, and so must fall back on cost-cutting to displace their loss in revenue. I believe retail “giants” are only going to become more powerful, until many now-prospering specially retailers are left consumer-less, unless they too can expand in some way and offer products of sufficient uniqueness and quality to overcome mega-retailer’s range of products and ease of shopping.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/davidprestage/2012/10/08/staples-struggling-for-growth/

Re: McDonald’s profit boosed in U.S., Europe

The original blog on the subject was basically adressing the strategies utilised by McDonald’s to hold such a strong position within its market, despite the existence of much rival corporations; such strategies included: cost-advantage; differentiation; and focus (however, I disagree with that they utilise “focus” simply because their consumer-base is so large; therefore, I will be addressing only the prior two points). I agree that McDonald’s takes advantage of both cost-advantage and differentiation to garner success- but I would like to address how, exactly, McDonald’s can do so when in the Porter’s article, it states that companies that are between two strategies within the same level of operation perform poorly. I believe McDonald’s overcomes this belief for a couple reasons: 1, they mastered cost-advantage to the point of becoming the biggest fast-food chain in the world; the strategy became indifferent of the company itself; 2, they waited until the strength of their name was such that missteps would cause minimal recoil to the company. Once stable, McDonald’s looked to broaden it’s marketing approach, not by ditching it’s cost advantage, but by adding it’s McCafe, consistent also with the chain’s cost-advantage approach. Because their consumer-base was already established, they did not have to worry about sending mixed messages of both “quality difference” with “cost-advantage” as much as a lesser-known company because the world already knows them for their cheap price, and mixing it up with differentiation gathers positive attention for the company, rather than confusing customers.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/bettyhuang/2012/10/07/mcdonalds-profit-boosted-by-u-s-europe/

Political tension between China and Japan is resulting in the latter cutting car production in the former by roughly half after the Japanese government purchased a group of “disputed islands in the East China Sea from their private owner.“ With sales of Toyota vehicles in China down 40% from this time last year, and violent protests continuing outside the company`s China-based production factories, it`s no wonder Japan is slowing down it`s production effort within it`s neighbour`s borders. The big idea here is just how much influence political issues can have on businesses, all other factors constant. Toyota has their target demographic, they have their strong value promise, a strong product, strong marketing, as well as consistency in all of these areas. But all that aside, roughly 60% of their success this year has been independant of their business plan. 60% of Toyota`s sales was totally out of the company`s hands. That`s a huge share of sales to have no control over, for any company, and the fact that such a portion of a company`s success can go up in smoke due to political conflict is reason enough for governments to take corporation wellbeing into account when acting potentially unfavourably with respect to countries of major production importance to their own.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/japan-carmakers-cut-china-production-half-nikkei-032354276–finance.html

“Ethics is the study of moral values or principles that guide our behaviour and inform us whether actions are right or wrong.” So how do ethics affect businesses? Many corporations, such as hybrid vehicle producers, spend millions of dollars to convince potential buyers that hybrids save the environment, taking advantage of people’s desire to “go green.” They hope that they can sell their pricey (relative to the vehicles’ non-hybrid counterparts) semi-alternative fuel vehicle because people will feel it is more morally right to buy. Though other benefits exist, such as less time at the pump, if you ask a hybrid owner why they drive a hybrid, you will very likely hear, “I’m saving the environment. Oh, and saving money on gas.” Most people want to be seen as doing the right thing, and hybrid-producers give people, perhaps a somewhat false, reason to believe they are. Other examples of the ethics card in play lie with companies like EnergyStar and GreenWorks. If they offer a product of no superior value in terms of performance, they produce an equal, or near equal, alternative that gives the customer the ample satisfaction that they are not to blame should the world be sufficated by the hand of the human race. While I support green movement, I can’t help but sense businesses in this department are only there for the “green” it brings them, and the green they ”protect” is just a plastered false smile.

For example, if environment was a hybrid’s top priority, we’d know it. And it’s not. (See: http://easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.ca/2006/12/inventor-of-water-powered-car-murdered.html)