Commenting on “Innovation Versus Environment”

Standard

A fellow classmate of mine, Richard Lee, recently posted a blog post titled “Innovation Versus the Environment – Where Do We Draw The Line?” discussing the environmental challenges that the now advanced industrial nation of China is currently facing. He states that “Only three out of 74 Chinese cities met the official minimum standards for air quality in 2013,” and that “its most populated city surpasses 15 times the level of pollution considered hazardous to health.” Although I recognize this as the unfortunate truth, I must also say that it comes for a reason. China is home to roughly 20% of the world’s population, according to The Atlantic, and as the standard of living increases with the nation’s new found wealth, so does the creation of pollutants. More citizens are now able to afford vehicles, modern technology, and a generally more luxurious lifestyle. Or in other words, they are becoming more like us. Canadians have an ecological footprint of 7.6 global hectares per person, according to the Global Footprint Network, 2010. On the other hand, China’s is 2.1. An easy comparison of these numbers shows that each Canadian is actually using more area to produce the resources they consume than each Chinese person is. It is only the small population of Canada that is keeping it from developing into the environmental disaster that is China.

Chinese woman wearing mask in Harbin

Chinese woman wearing mask in Harbin, China (inhabitat.com)

According to ChinaDialogue, the main cause of air pollution in China is car exhaust and coal burning. The nation is trying to combat these issues by regulating driving to a few days a week, and closing down coal-powered power stations. But the factories continue to operate, producing goods that are shipped out all around the world. Their smoggy skies are partially attributable to our constant demand for goods in the developed world. In a way, we are directly responsible for the pollution that is affecting China.

Thus, the environmental problems that China faces are due to their own overpopulation, as well as the consumerism culture of the rest of the world.

Android One Low-Cost Smartphone

Standard
google-android-one-india

Visitors looking at the Android One in New Delhi, Sept. 15. Source: cbc.ca

Often times, when we think of smartphones, we think of them as luxury that only citizens of developed nations can afford to buy. The average smartphone costs around $500 without the plan, and with giant companies like Apple and Samsung standing in the way, there doesn’t seem to be much market share left over.

However, Google has found a way to reach untapped markets in the developing world through their new “Android One” smartphones. Teaming up with three Indian phone manufacturers, Google launched its new family of phones for under $120 each. These phones feature a 1.3 GHz quad core processor, a 5 MP primary camera, 4GB of memory that is expandable to 32GB, and the ability to take two different SIM cards. It also comes loaded with Android Kit Kat (4.4) and will be given the free update to Android L once it’s released. With this affordable device, many more people will be able to join in on the digital world that is currently dominated by developed nations. This could mean a lot to Google’s competitors, namely Apple and Samsung. By reaching a greater population, Google is not only gaining more market share, it is also establishing its name in the developing world. By branching out and collaborating with international companies, it is gaining new insights and technology to continue to expand it’s business, as well as a larger customer base.

 

 

 

A Desk in the Factory – Business Ethics

Standard

In today’s modern society, everything is bigger, better, faster, and stronger than before. New products roll off the assembly line so quickly, consumers hardly have time to learn the functions of their new phone before the next model is in stores. The reason for this rapid-fire product generation is, of course, to create profit. The problem is, often times the marketers and CEOs making these decisions, do not see the impact their latest and greatest product has on the workers below them.

As mentioned in The Economist’s article, “When the Job Inspector Calls”, product life-cycles are shortening, but last-minute design changes and new product launches mean suppliers have to amp up their working hours to avoid financial penalties. Timberland, a boot and clothing company, stated in a company report in 2007 that “some of our procedures were making it difficult for factories to control working hours”. When this happens, the public may begin to question a company’s fair treatment of their employees, and in turn, their ethics.

buildinginspector

Photo Source: Safety Smart Compliance

In order to eliminate the possibly shaming criticism a company might face, it is essential that a strong communication system is established between all branches of the supply chain. Better yet, if employees took on more responsibilities, a greater understanding could be created between those who sit in the office, and those who stand behind machines.