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

Upon seeing this prompt, I was instantly struck by the meaning and thoughts behind it. The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization that provides need and assistance in countries around the world, in turn improving the lives of billions of people. This aid can be seen financially as well as through sanctions, laws, aid workers and technology the UN attempts to better the lives of people living in difficult situations. I truly believe however that if there was ever such a thing as a fully funded UN it would not be able to sustain itself longterm and help the people that really need it.

This is why, in my opinion, it is important for programs like the Arc Initiative and Skoll Foundation to exist. One reason for this is that the UN is very good at providing short-term aid but is simply unable to provide it long-term as their resources are spread so thin across the world. This is why organizations like Arc and the Skoll Foundation are needed as they can provide more sustainable means through their promotion of social enterprise in the countries they go into. This fact alone allows the individuals living in these struggling areas to become financially independent, learn applicable business skills and also produce economic growth in their communities. This benefits everybody as by giving citizens in these countries that independence you can jumpstart financial growth across the country and improve not only the economics of the country but things like education, politics and healthcare as people strive to improve their lives all around. Truly both the UN and these various organizations are extremely important for the world and when they work together so much more can be accomplished and the global community prospers as a result.

http://skollworldforum.org/organization/skoll-foundation/

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

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

http://thehubhalifax.ca/social-entrepreneurship-ceeds-fresh-ideas/

http://harvillelindseyedm310.blogspot.ca

In Ariella London’s blog post, she highlights the fact that after 30 years the very popular lip balm brand Burt’s Bees is producing its first commercial. Like Ariella, I too was surprised to learn that this will be the first commercial that the company has made in 30 years as that is something very rare to see in today’s present age. Many brands rely on commercials and catchy slogans to move their product off shelves as their is now so much variety in the marketplace. Really, the fact that Burt’s Bees was able to hold off for so long shows how strong their brand name recognition is from simple means like word of mouth.

The reason I think that Burt’s Bees has such a strong brand name is that they have differentiated themselves in the marketplace with their focus on targeting a younger audience who appreciates different flavours and fun things like that. I personally do not know how successful Burt’s Bees television will be for the company, as they have been able to do so well without it. There is a very real possibility that the company will not see a major spike in sales because most people already know what the company is and what it stands for so they don’t need to see the commercial. I’m sure that Burt’s Bees will see an increase in sales heading into the holiday season, but I think it will be interesting to see in the long term if the investment the company made into the commercial was truly worth it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/business/media/with-whimsy-burts-bees-introduces-its-first-tv-campaign.html?ref=media&_r=0

http://www.vitacost.com/burts-bees-hand-salve-3-oz-2

http://adventuresingreenliving.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/make-your-own-lip-balm-similar-to-burts-bees/

In Jeremy Chan’s blog post about entrepreneurship, he highlights many of the key reasons why this branch of business plays such a strong part in today’s society. Without entrepreneurs like Jonathan Rothberg who always are searching to answer’s life’s problems and in turn make it easier, much of the innovation of today would be inexistent. I agree with Jeremy over the fact that “disruptive innovations” are key for revolutionizing industries as without them industries could become stagnant and refuse to evolve. The evolution that these innovations bring helps to propel not only the industry but society forward in generally a positive light. In the case of Jonathan Rosenberg his aim to alter the health industry with a handheld ultrasound is genius. Just looking and thinking about this concept one can only imagine how helpful and needed this technology is. By turning the technology of an ultrasound into a handheld device so many more people around the world would be able to experience and use this technology even in a third world type setting. From an entrepreneurial stand point, I agree with Jeremy’s analysis that such a technology would possess the advantage of being first in its market and as such over time they could expand into other forms of personalized health care equipment as the firm would be associated with the field first.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/532166/with-100-million-entrepreneur-sees-path-to-disrupt-medical-imaging/

http://www.consult-ice.com/capacity-building-in-entrepreneurship/

Amazon is one of the most popular companies in North America, quickly establishing itself in the last 20 years as the largest Internet based company in the United States. Amazon began it’s life as an online bookstore but soon the immense success they saw led them to branch out into DVD’s, video games, electronics, furniture and apparel. Amazon from the outside seems to be making all of the right decisions, however there may be signs that they slowly are moving away from their key business fundamentals.

This shift can be seen in Amazon’s not very successful foray into the smartphone landscape with the Amazon Fire. This phone has been hard pressed to establish a following in the tech space and really is beginning to be viewed as a curiosity rather than a success. This can be seen by the fact that over a two month period, Amazon only sold 35,000 units which is horrible compared to companies like Apple who sold 9 million iPhone 5s in its launch weekend or Samsung who sold 11 million of their Galaxy S5 in a month. I believe the reason why the Fire has done so poorly is because Amazon priced the phone too high at $650 when their whole concept was unproven. Amazon truly has no track record in this industry so I believe it would be very hard for a consumer to justify purchasing a phone from them as they entered the game so late.

Another shift currently occurring at Amazon right now is their desire to begin to open up brick and mortar stores. Amazon has announced plans to open their first physical store in New York in the near future as well as plans to open pop up stores in San Francisco and Sacramento for the Christmas holiday season. I personally am very curious to see how successful these various types of stores will be. Amazon found its niche in the online space, so I think it will be interesting if their customer base will adapt and also utilize the physical stores. Moreover, Amazon is again entering into a new market where they will have a whole slew of new competitors who very likely may try and place barriers of entry around the company. The next few months will truly be an interesting time to see the evolution of this extremely popular brand and company.

http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-fire-phone-struggles-in-purpose-purgatory-with-poor-sales-estimates-7000032988/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/amazon-store-coming-to-nyc/

http://www.itproportal.com/2014/10/31/amazon-admits-fire-phone-price-failure-as-sales-dry-up/

http://bgr.com/2012/02/06/amazon-reportedly-plans-to-open-a-retail-store-this-year/

Facebook users who accessed the social media site on November 6 were sure to notice a small blurb in the top field of their computer screens. This ad urged Facebook users to donate money to organizations like the International Medical Corps, Save the Children, and the American Red Cross to help provide relief in countries suffering from the widespread Ebola outbreak. These donations will help these organizations combat the growing number of outbreaks by allowing for proper burials of the deceased and providing proper care to try and take care of those still suffering.

Additionally, Facebook has also pledged to provide medical information from UNICEF to inhabitants of certain regions and also help to donate 100 satellite communication terminals so that workers can have wireless service in remote areas of countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone. I think that Nathaniel does a very good job of explaining Facebook’s strategy of assisting those suffering from this terrible disease through his clear and concise explanation of the events of the campaign. I also appreciated the fact that he urged people to, regardless of whether they give money through Facebook or other campaigns, really know where their money is going as some charities do not have the best track record of distributing aid fairly. All in all, I think Nathaniel in his blog did a brilliant job of spreading awareness for this mounting campaign and showing Facebook’s social responsibility in regards to this topic. Already, this has had a positive impact as another big tech company in Google has joined the campaign urging people to give anything they can to fight this outbreak. Hopefully the increased exposure all around will inspire more people to pay it forward and donate to this worthy cause so that more aid and resources can be sent to these various regions to combat the disease.

http://pando.com/2014/11/06/facebook-commits-to-the-fight-against-ebola/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/11/11/363311837/facebook-friends-ebola-relief-google-searches-for-donations

http://www.directrelief.org/2014/09/statement-regarding-donations-west-africa-ebola-outbreak/

This Thanksgiving season, American shoppers will have to pay attention to see if their favourite stores are opening or shuttering their doors this holiday season. This 2014 season will see the latest culmination in the fight of many big box stores in their decision to either open on Thanksgiving or let their employees spend the day with their families. 2014 has seen an increasing number of stores vowing to give their employees the day off from Costco, to Home Depot and T.J. Maxx. These 3 stores along with two dozen more are making a stand this holiday season by closing their doors to the public and allowing their employees to spend the holiday with their family before the major Black Friday sales.

This contradicts many other stores like Macy’s and Walmart who open earlier and earlier every year to try and entice customers to start their shopping early. This fact is appreciated and utilized by many Americans but an increasing number are saying no to this “Black Thursday” as evidenced by the 60,000 people who liked the campaign Boycott Black Thursday on Facebook.

I personally believe that more stores should close for Thanksgiving as by doing this the stores will provide their employees with valuable family time. This is especially important as this day off will allow employees a change to recharge and relax before the hustle and bustle of Black Friday the next day. This is important to note as this will help to ensure that all employees are wide awake and prepared to assist customers which will lead to better all around service. I know that closing on any day can be tough for a company as it means you are unable to make a profit, but sometimes a little family time can mean so much more then a simple dollar.

http://time.com/money/3556863/thanksgiving-hours-closed-black-thursday/

https://www.popularresistance.org/big-retailers-make-low-paid-workers-into-exploited-turkeys-on-thanksgiving/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicaprobus/these-chain-stores-are-actually-giving-their-employees-thank

The First Nations people of Canada and the various levels of government have always struggled to find a level playing field when it comes to land distribution. Their have been many instances over the past 100 years where issues have arisen due to the government’s intentions to begin projects on land that various First Nations groups consider important to their traditions.

In the past month alone two instances have arisen; one revolving around various BC First Nations band urging government to reject a proposed hydroelectric  megaproject and the other revolving around the Tsilhqot’in declaring the site of a proposed New Prosperity mine a tribal park. It is my understanding that in both of these instances the issues revolve around who truly has the right to dictate the future of these patches of land. For the Tsilhqot’in they feel that the recent regulation that passed by the supreme court that encompassed 1,750 sq KM of land was not accurate in terms of representation and as such they are including the mine in their plans for the tribal park.

In regards to the hydroelectric dam the various First Nations group feel that the flooding of 83 Km of the Peace River Valley would harm their ability to gather resources such as the animals they hunt and that it would hurt their culture as they have used the land for generations as a meeting place and means to teach the next generation about their way of life.

All in all, I believe that both of these issues boil down to a difference of opinions, The government is concerned with building the industry and economy of the country while the First Nations are struggling to hold onto and protect their way of life. I feel it would be in the best interests of both sides to work together and attempt to find the best possible solution through compromise and continuous dialogue.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html

http://ri-ir.org/2012/11/22/harper-launches-major-first-nations-termination-plan-as-negotiating-tables-legitimize-canadas-colonialism/

http://www.citynews.ca/2012/05/09/first-nations-protest-enbridges-proposed-oilsands-pipeline/

It is expected that as early as Monday news will be announced that will shape the tech landscape. Hewlett-Packard Co (HP) is expected to announce that it will be splitting into two companies to place more focus on the faster corporate service market. I believe this will be a very important step in the landscape of the tech industry and especially for HP as this is a large decision that is impacting one of the most important companies of the past 100 years and a company still prominent with over 300,000 employees.

It is HP’s plan to separate itself into two  separate entities with one focusing on computers and printers and the other corporate hardware and services. This is all coming about in my opinion because of how hard HP has found it to stay relevant in the shifting landscape of technology. This is mostly due in my opinion to more and more companies entering the field and people moving towards mobile computing which they have never specialized in. HP was once at the forefront of the tech and PC revolutions but now I believe that many people consider it the old dog in the industry as their name alone does not hold the same values it once did. This can be seen by the fact that HP has lost its number 1 position of being the biggest PC maker by shipments to the very aggressive Chinese company Lenovo and has faced many of the same struggles that Dell has faced in recent years.

I know that HP is still very successful as they still possess a market value of $66 billion but that is actually a fragment of what companies like Apple and Microsoft possess. I feel that this is the smartest option for HP as it will allow them to hopefully expand their horizons and stay relevant in the years to come.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0HU0QY20141005?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/10/the-dow-just-gave-hp-another-reason-to-break-up.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/10/08/hp-why-bill-and-dave-would-back-a-break-up-plan/

     Siri, the popular personal assistant in Apple devices may soon be calling a new company home. This is because it has recently been revealed that Apple may lose the core basics of Siri to its rival Samsung. Siri is not actually an Apple product but it’s really a product of SRI International. The personal assistant was spun out of the parent company as Siri Inc. which was acquired by Apple in 2010.

This in general would make many assume that the product was untouchable by a rival like Samsung but in reality, the voice recognition engine of Siri is provided by a separate company called Nuance Communications. This leads to the reason why Apple is afraid of losing Siri as Nuance and Samsung began merger talks back in  June 2014 and those talks have now intensified. This in my view puts Apple in a bind as if Samsung is indeed interested in merging with Nuance then Apple may be forced to outbid Samsung. This would not be in the best interest of Apple in my opinion as they would then be stuck with all of Nuance’s businesses in fields like health care and imaging which Apple would not be interested in.

     These actions by Samsung to me show that their is a cutthroat rivalry between the companies and Samsung may be doing this as leverage to either force Apple to pay a tremendous amount of money for a company they don’t really want or steal a vital part of their product. This also in effect may be a way for Samsung to discredit Apple CEO Tim Cook as losing Siri would be beyond embarrassing for both himself and the company.

http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/439646/apple-about-lose-siri-samsung

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-tied-in-fight-with-Apple-over-supply-chain-control-as-only-10-of-Galaxy-S4-units-have-Exynos-chip_id43161

http://phandroid.com/2014/05/02/apple-vs-samsung-ends-with-guilty-verdict/

It is in my belief that business ethics are the concepts and beliefs that are put into effect across all aspects of business that help to govern and dictate the conduct for individuals and whole organizations. The presence of these ethics can help to shape and build the company and/or individual applying them. A company with strong business ethics will in general have a higher employee moral, attract new customers, achieve a sense of loyalty with old customers and can have a positive impact on the community. This is far different then a company that may not have strong ethics as they would be scrutinized by the public, and could potentially lose much of their business and staff. Ethics truly revolves around all areas of business as it can be applied to a number of different areas like abiding by the law, protecting employees and rewarding customer loyalty.

One company who has come under negative fire in the past year for their ethics is British oil giant Soco International. This is because contractors and agents working for Soco International are alleged to have paid bribes to officials and rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a bid to search for oil in Lake Edward in Virunga. This location is classified as a Unesco World Heritage Site and the company has come under fire by numerous environmental groups who fear they could bring harm to rare animals and the local fishing communities. Soco has denied all of these allegations but there is film evidence of supposed Soco employees offering bribes to various park officials and locals. I feel that these misconducts on behalf of the company have led to them having a tarnished reputation in the region and have placed a negative spotlight on the company.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/british-oil-giant-accused-of-bribery-in-tussle-over-africas-oldest-national-park-9710277.html