Organization Culture depends on the employees within the company: it is “a pattern of shared values, beliefs and assumptions considered to be the appropriate way to think and act within an organization.”

People always complain that the new Y generation, the Millennial, are lazy, self-centered, and demanding. The bad news for them is that this new generation is going to take over the workforce eventually: according this article, study shows that by 2025, nearly 75% of the workforce will be overtaken by Millennial.

With this ‘takeover’, I believe that the future organization culture of companies will change. As the Y generations are much better at technology and enjoy teamwork, company operations will certainly adjust to how these people best function: work will be more likely done through teams use of technology. Digital communication has become one of the Millennium’s best skills, thus I anticipate it’ll become a big part of the organization culture: people will connect to each other through online medias, such as Google +, Facebook etc instead of ‘old-fashioned’ e-mails and letters.

Generation Y also have a different social/work mindset, and this cause them to be motivated by different incentives. For example, their ‘laziness’ may cause them to be motivated to work in a more flexible workplace over pay incentives. As a result, organization cultures will be further transformed as HR has to set up different strategies to target and motivate the ‘new’ workforce.

 

In class 15, we discussed the importance of creating shared value. This is the idea where companies work beyond the so called “social corporate responsibilities” and actually integrate their production with 3 key factors: social, profits and environment. As a result, they’ll achieve economic success through appreciating societal needs. Recently, the foundation tied to Rockefeller family (heir to Standard Oil Co.) announced that it is going to join “other groups in exiting coal and tar sands investment”: they’re planning to phase out of fossil fuel use and commit to climate change. In short, they’re cutting their investments from coal, natural gas and oil sands producers.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund‘s action is a symbolic boost for a more sustainable environment. By doing this, I think they’re one step closer towards creating shared value. Global warming has become a significant issue, thus with fossil fuel’s carbon emissions being one of the main contributors, cutting ties with those non-renewable energy firms shows that they’re committing to the environment issues. It is an act of discouraging non-renewable energies to taint our planet further more. The Rockefellers’ movement may also create a momentum which brings in other shared value acts for the environment: in a way, it signals other firms to divest from the fossil fuel firms as well: “since the fossil fuel companies have the money, we have to have something on our side, and that’s people,”- Bill McKibben. Ultimately, the fund is attempting to set a trend which moves stakeholders away from fossil fuel (oil) companies, encouraging the use of renewable energy.

In conclusion, Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s decision shows me that some organizations/firms are actually making an effort to meet the societal needs. If their divest plans succeed, I anticipate that it will certainly help promote the use of sustainable energy and hence a more sustainable environment.

Click here to see the Article

Read More:

1. http://www.rbf.org/post/fund-announces-plans-divest-fossil-fuels
2. http://breakingenergy.com/2014/11/05/who-is-afraid-of-fossil-fuel-divestments-apparently-the-fossil-fuel-obby/

 

 

 

Crispin Mwanyumba’s blog-post regarding Coca-Cola’s new release of the “Coca-Cola Life” caught my attention, and I find myself agreeing with some of his analysis. Crispin points out that he applauds Coca-Cola for making an effort to try to change Coca-cola’s brand image: the new Coca-Cola Life is a healthier drink in comparison to the traditional Coca-Cola as it contains less calories and promises all natural sugar (replacing artificial sugars). Despite this effort, he describes that this strategy may be ineffective as it is hard to change Coca-cola’s position in the consumer’s mind, and that there are already many competitors in the ‘healthy drinks’ market.

As consumers become more and more health-orientated, they have substituted into more natural drinks such as juice and smoothies, resulting in huge decline in sales for soft drinks. In order to approach this fall in sales, Coco-cola has released quite a few drinks in order to encourage people to drink coke: Coca-Cola Zero, Coca-Cola Diet… and now the Coca-Cola Life. ‘Life’ has a different color for its bottle and can packaging: it’s green. Crispin states that this color change may affect demand as consumers mostly only associate Coco-Cola with red. This may be true: once the representative color is changed, consumers may not even notice this new drink as it no longer seem to be a highly recognized product. However, I do think it’s all about the physical position of the product on the shelf: if ‘Life is placed right beside all the other Coca-Cola products, I see no concern that consumers may ‘miss’ out this drink. This new ‘green’ color may also help consumers to see that Coca-Cola has taken action to increase its natural approach. Moreover both Coca-Cola Zero and Diet are not packaged in the original red color yet  there were still a lot of sales, thus color of the can/bottle can be seen as not that big of an issue.

 

However, besides that point, I agree with Crispin’s view on difficulty in changing Coca-Cola’s position in the industry. Coca-Cola’s position has been well established in our minds since we were young: it is a soft drink, and although it tastes awesomely refreshing, it contains a lot of sugar and is an unhealthy choice. Releasing ‘Life’ will not change our minds by a lot, especially after Coca-Cola Zero’s negative media feedback. If we wanted a healthier drink, Coca-Cola would never make the top of the list: there are simply so many other drinks for us to choose from. In my point of view, I think if Coco-Cola really wishes to boost revenue from ‘healthy’ drinks, it should start a brand new drink which is stripped of any ‘Coca-Cola’ name on it. To climb up the healthy drinks ladder, Coca-Cola needs to start on a fresh page and climb the ladder without any past Coca-Cola (negative) images dragging it down.

Related Article:

1. http://www.bidnessetc.com/21356-coca-cola-ko-pepsico-pep-news-us-soda-sales-decline/

I use Spotify on a daily basis ever since my friend recommended it to me: it is a program which enables easy access to various music streaming services. Recently, Sharon Zhao wrote a new post in her blog regarding the revolution of the music industry: she points out that streaming and other kinds of online music may eventually ‘kill’ the music business.

Although it is true that music companies are(may) suffering from the online threats as consumers are seen to be substituting away from buying physical CDs and albums to streaming them online free of charge, however, I disagree that the music companies may be the ultimate losers in the long run. As technology and trends shift and is altered, music industries will lose profit from the physical albums: this is inevitable. However, I anticipate music companies will adjust their positions in the music industry to allow them to become ‘winners’ again. Afterall, the music companies and singers are the innovators and they are the ones creating new music for us everyday. If their business starts to suffer and they become motivated  to leave the music industry, there will no longer be any music provided for us and we will become unsatisfied. Besides, music companies can earn profit through many alternative methods; for example, as technology has advanced causing concert halls to become more accessible, and consumers becoming wealthier due to improved standards of living, music companies will find that more people are willing to go to concerts on a regular basis thus they can make money out of it. A music company which makes use of this change in trend will gain from consumers once again.

On the other hand, Sharon also shares concern that most consumers are not willing to buy music even when they’re sold online. Currently, Spotify allows consumers to have a freemium account, in which they can choose to upgrade into a premium account. I think Spotify uses excellent strategies such as annoying promotions in the between sound tracks to encourage users to upgrade into premium version. According to this article, already there has been 6 million people with a premium account. thus trend shows that people are actually becoming more willing to pay for music streaming services: after-all a premium account allows them to have convenient soundtracks where they have complete control over what they want to listen to. As Spotify’s popularity increases and brilliant marketing strategies within its freemium account is used (adverts kill mood and freemium also limits listeners to ‘shuffle’/skip music ),it may be possible that the music industry will become well supported by the premium users of Spotify. Out of 5 of my friends, 2 already uses premium.

Moreover, some singers, such as Taylor Swift, chose to remove her tracks from Spotify recently in hope to gain revenue from CDs/online sales. This is another strategy music businesses could adapt to increase its profits without relying on online streaming services.

Related cites:

1. Taylor Swift’s Decision to remove her music fromn Spotify: https://news.spotify.com/uk/2014/11/03/taylor-swifts-decision/

Recently I read an article regarding ‘Five Below‘ as the fastest growing teen retailer. This company sells a variety of products, ranging from “tech accessories and sporting goods to party supplies and bedroom decor,” and it has expanded quickly from 82 locations in 2008 up to 366 locations now. This rapid growth may be result of the company’s successive adaption to one of Porter’s strategy: low cost focus strategy.

The low cost focus strategy can be easily identified in the advert posted above: they are specifically targeting teenagers (there are a bunch of teenagers smiling) and it also claims that all prices will not exceed $5 ceiling. This is a really powerful strategy as most teenagers only have a limited amount of pocket money, and a low cost strategy is perfect for them. Five Below also attracts them through positioning their products as “coolest, trendiest, and highest quality stuff,” which seems to be exactly what teenagers look for. In my point of view (and from experiencing teen years myself), I think teenagers place trendiness and coolness among their top priorities: they always want to fit in, and be accepted as a ‘normal’ individual (following social norms). Therefore I think good use of porter’s strategies along with correct positing of the firm can have really promising results, with Five Below as an example.

However, I also recognize that this success may only be for short run period: low cost goods are great, however I notice that among the newer generations, teenagers are starting to have increased wealth: they are starting to look for better quality or branded goods ,and it may be no be ‘trendy’ to buy cheap things. As this mindset evolves, Five Below may hit an expansion peak soon and will need to adopt another strategy. Having everything below $5 may also become a challenge for the company as inflation in the economy is inevitable: “a dollar received in the future is less than a dollar on hand today”. As costs and prices rise within the firm, Five Below may have to adopt another slogan or even change its firm name (leading to constant change) which may lead to unsatisfied consumers as they feel their real income is decreasing. Hence although the strategy and positioning of the firm may seem very successful now, I think Five Below is bound to change its strategy in the future for sustainable growth. As other entrepreneurs notice Five Below’s success, they may also adapt the same strategy and increase rivalry in the industry, which may result as a deadly threat against Five Below.

 

Related articles:

1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/meet-five-below-americas-fastest-growing-teen-retailer
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/five-below-soars-on-teen-shopping-craze-post-zany-brainy.html

 

B.C. Hydro has been planning a $8 billion Dam megaproject in Northern British Columbia, which as a result has raised strong opposition voices from the First Nations of BC: “B.C. is Indian land,” Premier Christy Clark declaed.

Source: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/what-site-c-dam-really-explosion-new-fracking-wells

I see this as a huge threat to B.C. Hydro (SWOT), as the First Nation Chiefs have the potential to persuade the Harper government to reject the Dam: though the Dam is estimated to cost $8 billion, however, it has not taken into account of the costs from lost farmlands and natural habitat: the Dam will cause an artificial flood, drowning 83 kilometers of the Peace River Valley. Not only will the First Nations be affected as their lands will disappear, but moreover, economy of BC will also be affected as fishing and agriculture industries upstream will be harmed severely. Altogether, these severe weaknesses in the project may eventually lead to shut down of the idea.

On the other hand, I read another article from The Sun which raises the point that although the Dam in Site C is claimed to offer new, clean energy in the cheapest form, leakage of a draft report from the Clean Energy Association of BC indicates that there are alternative ways of producing equal amount of energy, but with reduction cost of  $1 billion. With double threats shooting at BC Hydro, I think there is high chance that the government will choose to save costs and protect society, thus shutdown the megaproject.

Therefore although the project has huge potentials to help promote clean energy and provide huge amounts of hydroelectric energy for the growing population in BC, the entire project may be shot down due to better alternatives. To keep the project running, I’m afraid BC Hydro will have to offer more advantages to the BC community, such as offering them new homes and facilities in the future, to be able to gain more acceptance by the government and society.  Other actions BC Hydro could offer can include selling farmlands cheaply to the BC farmers, or subsidizing their farm production; as for the Firs Nations’ land, they should find something which have great value to replace their lost lands and homes, or offer them free hydroelectricity and give promise for clean water.

Even if BC Hydro manages to go forth with the project, the company is bound to face many more threats from external factors. Any failures of the project will be heavily criticized thus in proceeding this project, the BC Hydro bears a huge burden of perfection in the dam.

Thus from this current issue, we can have a further insight in how threats and other external factors of a business may be so powerful, that it may result in complete shut down of $8 billion worth mega-dam project. Firms must consider all factors thoroughly before making any decisions, or else it may become a very costly matter.

 

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

Bill Marriott, the Chairman of Marriott International, also happens to be a well-known cooperate blogger. From his 28th July 2014 entry, I came to realize that his company has been selected “World’s Most Ethical Company” for the 7th time in 8 years. This is definitely a marvelous achievement for his company. As I read his blog, I admire the way he views success, and the way he tries to create positive change to their community.

Bill Marriott, Chairman of Marriott International

According to Bill Marriott and other employees such as Bill Dempster, Marriott have had 87 years long worth of strong value-based traditions: they are well recognized by their stakeholders for their trust-worthiness, high respect for law, commitment to their global commitments and integrity. They are constantly trying to “fulfill expectations of the community”. Marriott have certainly worked really hard to be able to have drilled this brilliant reputation in the stakeholder’s mind.

Having read Bill’s blog and his goal to maintain a successful and good company, I think I finally understand that Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory may actually be applicable to reality, although obviously it will only apply for a very few firms; within those firms, they will always have imperfection, too.  Before knowing about Marriott, I thought Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory is impossible to fulfill: all stakeholders may have different wants which could contradict each other thus the theory cannot hold; however now that I have read about Marriott’s business objective to fulfill all expectations of stakeholders, I learnt that as long as you work really hard for it, it may be done.

On the other hand, from Bill Dempster’s video, I see that their business’ ethical success not only rely on the company’s PR, but it also involves every single employee’s commitment to the global community and traditional culture of ethics: “it’s something that starts at the top of the company.” With this note, I hope that other companies such as Nike would be able to follow this ethical inspiration and not just set their minds on objectives such as increasing market share, maximizing profit… Even if a business achieves all these profit goals, I do not think a business is successful unless it’s doing things with good value  and integrity.

 

Structure of a flow battery.
Source: http://www.tantaline.com/Flow-Batteries-568.aspx 

According to this recent article, flow batteries may be the “key to chancing the way electricity is stored in the grid”. Flow battery is a new technology which enables energy captured from solar and wind power to be stored, which in turn allows renewable energy to become more “reliable and cost effective,” thus can become more widely used.  This is potentially a significant breakthrough as the globe is trying to promote sustainable and clean sources of energy. If the renewable energies could be finally stored and used whenever the company/individuals need it,  then humankind would no longer need to rely on limited resources such as coal and oil.

The introduction of flow battery could make change production lines, as well as the structures of new technologies such as the familiar electronic cars. As large amount of energy may now be stored in liquid tanks a low cost, this would car companies such as Tesla to be able to build batteries that support fuel miles well beyond 380 miles. This would solve one of their major weaknesses and make the Tesla cars more attractive.  If the concept of flow batteries become increasingly globally recognized, this may change production lines, and improve operation efficiency in many companies. In addition,  emissions may be greatly reduced as energy production finally finds a reliable clean alternative.

Although this new technology may need a few more years to develop to ensure absolute safety and reliability, I think this is a significant step of humankind towards a more sustainable, greener future.

 

Article source: Canada, GE. “This Technology Could Be the Tipping Point for Wind and Solar Power.” GE Innovation. The Globe and Mail, 17 July 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/ge-innovation/this-technology-could-be-the-tipping-point-for-wind-and-solar-power/article19657727/>.

 

source: http://blogs.blackberry.com/category/devices-2/blackberry-passport-devices/

In class 7, we touched upon the news of Blackberry’s most recent phone launch: the Blackberry Passport. Blackberry has once again taken on the focus (differentiation) strategy, where they are focusing their sales on the enterprise segment, and they have set their smartphone design apart from other rivals such as Apple and Samsung as they are powered by its own operating system and the “Passport” has a mini keyboard on it.

Blackberry has adapted many features into this new phone in order to allow work focused users to be able to work in an efficient manner. For example, it has a great touch sensitive screen which allows multiple gesture-based shortcuts. The phone is also specially designed with extra width (a square screen) to allow users to edit easily. Voice commands are introduced into the Passport. With all these functions, it can be seen that Blackberry has finally caught up with the new technology, and is going back on track.

However, although I love how Blackberry has not blindly followed the smartphone trend and has set themselves apart with a very focused strategy, I feel that Blackberry will not be able to return to its peak previous sales of 13.2 million in 2011. This is because the trend of having a Blackberry is long gone, and people have now all settled for either an Apple or a Samsung phone. With the newest iPhone 6 very hot in the market right now and most people adapted to the Android/Apple system, it is unlikely customers will switch back to Blackberry and its unique operating system. From what it seems, the system doesn’t seem very user friendly (a lot of special hand gestures for shortcuts) and any adaption time may waste work users’ precious time (inefficiency).

On the other hand, I think Blackberry will also face competition from the tablets/ipads in the market. Having discussed with my father who is a work focused user, I realized their wants has actually emerged to tablets/iPads. Tablets are very light with far bigger screens, a much longer battery life and a lot of storage space. Through the android system, tablets such as the Samsung tab 10.0 is able to open multiple programs at the same time and still work very efficiently. They also have a big screen which allows reading to be much easier and enjoyable (in comparison to small cramped writing). Thus, tablets can also be more beneficial in many areas in comparison to Blackberry Passport, such as for looking at very visual presentations and even watching videos.

In conclusion, I think that Blackberry Passport may only appeal to a very limited audience. Even within the work focused segment, customers may find other phones/tablets more productive. Therefore, I think if Blackberry wants to strive for improved sales, they should expand on their model and make it less exclusive, and more user-friendly.

Work cited: Kelion, Leo. “Blackberry Rethinks the Keyboard.” Technology. BBC News, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <BBC News>.

picture cited from: (http://www.largewalls.com/nike-shoes-wallpaper-2/)

Words of Nike’s sweatshop problem have spread around the globe like wild fire, resulting in Nike’s brand image to come tumbling down. Nike has tried hard to mend its image and turns things around. It’s acting up on its corporate responsibilities to ensure their employees are treated fairly: e.g. it has created “Fair Labour Association” which establishes “independent monitoring and code of conduct” within the company.

I think Nike has done well in choosing to outsource their production into third world countries such as Vietnam.  As a result, Nike has made use of comparative and absolute advantage offered by other economies, and ensures production is efficient with minimal costs (labour cost). I believe it’s part of the business responsibility that firms should always try to improve productivity and ensure resources of the world are used efficiently.

However, since Nike is such a big part of the sports good industry, I think that another important corporate responsibility they should keep in mind is their brand image. In the transparent and globalized world we have today, brand names are significant so if they want to keep Nike alive and successful, the firm must ensure non-economic values of business ethics are utilized.

Click here to see detailed Article