Monthly Archives: September 2017

Businesses are often proposed with the opportunity of taking risks which could potentially enable them to prosper. Although ostensibly intimidating, risk-taking is essential, and can act as the living embodiment to a successful company. However, companies can sometimes find themselves taking risks that breach the ethical code, and thus inevitably receiving pressure from various protesting groups.

This is demonstrated in a recent article concerning the construction of the Enbridge 3 Line, which would increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline, running “from Hardisty, Alberta, clip[ping] a corner of North Dakota, and cross[ing] Minnesota.” The issue at hand not only pertains to underlying ethical issues with the construction of pipelines in general, but also entails key concepts including assessing the potential risk and reward of pipeline construction from a financial standpoint.

An image showcasing a few details pertaining to the construction of Line 3, in comparison to the existing pipeline.

Environmentalist groups are horrified at the consequences of a potential oil spill, which would not only be detrimental to Enbridge’s assets, but most importantly the environment. Within this situation, there are two outcomes- one in which Enbridge must accept the unlimited liability of a potential oil spill, or one where they produce significantly more barrels of oil per day. Enbridge is desperately gambling on the latter, ultimately showcasing Milton Freidman’s Shareholder Theory by seeking to maximize profit, and further ignoring the immense backlash received by many environmentalist groups.

Enbridge’s actions can be further analysed through assessing their investment decisions with respect to both long-term and short-term benefits. From a financial standpoint, the transportation of oil is essential to create successful trade relations with other countries, thus the expansion of Enbridge’s Line 3 serves as a long-term financial investment. Its cost of construction, valued at 7.5 billion dollars and multiple years of labor will have a great trade-off; by creating significantly more barrels of oils per day, Enbridge will be able to provide petroleum shippers and refineries in the region with greater amounts, to create greater profit. As great as the long-term may sound, Enbridge is currently suffering short-term effects including heavy protest from locals.

However, the outcry of many environmentalist groups raises the question: Realistically, what are Enbridge’s options?

An image showcasing ongoing protests as a result of pipeline construction.

The current safest means of transporting oil is through pipelines, by using strong steel to minimize any potential incident. Alternatives including railroads have a greater margin for error; it is vital to acknowledge that “as environmentally disastrous and common as pipeline leaks are, the alternative may be worse.” In a world where certain trade relations rely on oil, I believe that companies and governments must be willing to take the risk, of-course, whilst taking heavy precautions.

At the end of it all, if Enbridge succeeds in their public hearing, they could find themselves with deep pockets. However, the construction of pipelines is almost rarely a two-way street- rising tension may very well ensure that Line 3 never sees the day.

Word Count: 448

The world of business revolves around certain significant objectives which companies strive to achieve. Companies have a heavy burden on their shoulders and can consequently find themselves in ethical debacles attempting to simultaneously fulfill consumer, employer and financier satisfaction.

Such is the case with one of the world’s largest and most prosperous technological companies, Apple Inc. In a recent article, Apple has been accused of mandating a policy of planned obsolescence, which brings into question the concept of business ethics, and the social responsibilities of a company.

As conveyed by Jonathan Sterne in his article, Apple’s removal of the headphone jack for their latest iPhone model (1.1) can be described as “innovation to keep people buying the same things in new packages.” To elaborate, Apple has transformed the universal standard of a headphone jack admired by all consumers and companies alike for decades, replacing it with a Bluetooth alternative which achieves a marginally superior sound output, at a significantly higher cost. By doing so, thousands of consumer headphones have been rendered obsolete, giving us the notion that Apple deliberately wants us to spend more on their newest product. The colossal backlash from the consumer community can be used to demonstrate the consequences of a company that does not conform to all stakeholders, in this case, consumers.

(1.1) An image showcasing the loss of the headphone jack on the iPhone 7

Most importantly, Sterne mentions that Apple themselves have explicitly admitted to setting a three-year life expectancy rate to their notorious iPhone, raising the question: Is your iPhone doomed for failure the moment you purchase it?

This ethical question can be analysed through a comparison of shareholder and stakeholder theory, explored by Milton Freidman and Edward Freeman. According to Freidman, the only social responsibility of a business is to maximize profits to its shareholders, whilst abiding by the law. Here, parallels can be drawn between Freidman’s stance and Apple’s value-based management. By setting a three-year life expectancy rate to iPhones, removing the headphone jack and intentionally slowing down previous iOS software upon the release of newer models (1.2), Apple is tugging at the sleeves of consumers to make constant expenditure on their products for shameless profit.

(1.2) Statistical Analysis of Apple’s Planned Obsolesence

Is Apple technically considered to be in the right for doing so? Freeman, and myself included, would argue they are not. All stakeholders working together is “what makes capitalism tick”. For a business to be successful, a company must “create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and financiers.” It is undeniable that Apple does not conform to this theory- it puts its profits first, observed through the removal of the headphone jack and deliberate sabotage of its older models.

To all future consumers- I encourage you all to delve into Apple’s intentions, and ensure your money is spent wisely. You may be purchasing from a company which violates business ethics, plunging the free market into peril.

Word Count: 444

Dimitrije Gacic