Monthly Archives: November 2014

Ladies don’t lie; I’m sure you own at least one article of clothing from the infamous Aritzia. Aritzia is a highly credited clothing company in the fashion industry with simple and trendy styles. However, have you ever walked into the store, simply glance at a sweater, and have two or three girls rush to you to ask if you wanted to try it on? Do you feel the burning tension between the employees and the competition of meeting their sky-high quotas? Or what about the forced smiles, telling you how amazing your butt looks inside those Citizens of Humanity jeans? Unfortunately, this is the reality for most Aritzia customers and the ones to blame aren’t the employees themselves, but the management and human resources department.

After reading a former employee’s blog post about her traumatizing experience, I was not surprised. She talks about her long hours, their strict rules, and their expectations of humanly impossible multitasking. Aritzia is not a financial incentive based company but instead, their incentives are hours and discounts. It is a requirement for Aritzia employees to look their best at all times and wear the latest collections. The only way to afford Aritzia clothing from head-to-toe with a low wage is with their discounts.

These harsh working conditions created by management reflect on the company’s image and how the employees treat their customers. When I walk into Aritzia, I feel like a tiny fish, preyed by a sea of piranhas. In contrast to Zappos with impeccable customer service and employee benefits, Aritzia leaves their employees traumatized by the company and pushes customers away with their aggressive sales strategies. I highly disagree with the behaviour their employees have been conditioned to act and believe that Aritzia’s sales would increase exponentially if management improved the way they treat their workers and brightened the atmosphere of the store. The company should start by considering financial incentives or just a higher wage in general for their employees, instead of their current methods.

So next time you reach for that Marc Jacobs bag, beware, they’re coming after you.

The UN’s mandate is to carry out four main purposes but the one I am interested in is it’s mission “To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms”. Although the UN is fully funded, the burning questions is why do they need the Arc or other social enterprises? 

The UN comprises of 193 Member State representatives with the similar vision of ensuring world peace and aiding the growth of developing nations. Although they have the same views, they all have different backgrounds, traditions, and procedures in accomplishing their goals, which may be difficult to reach a consensus as one entity. This is where social enterprises step in.

Social enterprises are also the channels connecting social entrepreneurs with the right resources and support from government and UN to make an impact in the world. As Uwonkunda says to her comm101 instructor, “I told him about non-profits that have donated money to Rwanda following the war but didn’t make a lasting impact,”. He then directed her to the Arc Initiative, which provides Uwonkunda the tools necessary to accomplish her goals of reaching out to those in Rwanda, providing fundamental business skills. Social enterprises can also have their own individual ideas and purposes which can in turn, provide aid to different segments of world issues including education, clean water, providing clothing, etc. This allows an even distribution of aid throughout the globe and accomplishing multiple things. How I see it is the UN provide the funds or support, but the social enterprises are the “go-getters”.

This post is in response to Eric Lin’s blog post about No Longer Canadian.

I was quite shocked and disappointed when I discovered that Burger King was strategically acquiring one of my favourite fast food chains, Tim Hortons. Due to Burger King’s low demand in Canada, they thought it would be smart to purchase a company that produced higher revenues and follow their business model.

Applying the PEST analysis, the purchase of Tim Hortons will heavily impact Canadians economically and socially. As Eric has outlined, this will cause 44% of Canadian corporate workers to lose their job, but it also adds a challenge for Canadians to buy the rights of a now foreign-based franchise.

Although there is a heavy economic loss, I believe there is an even larger social issue in this topic. The Canadian government is always encouraging Canadians to create their own content and limit American influence; an American corporation acquiring one of our most famous companies doesn’t exactly corroborate this. Tim Hortons is one of the most common Canadian stereotypes around the world—we have to have our Tim Hortons with our maple syrup. It truly disappoints me when I see Canadian companies drop one by one to American influence or purchases. Tim Horton’s isn’t the only one, but there is an entire list.

Canadians, let’s show some national pride and stop letting Americans buy us out.

Me to We is a social enterprise founded by two brothers, Craig and Marc Keilburger, which provides youth with leadership, social, and environmental conscious experiences. They include numerous volunteer trips, workshops, and of course, We Day! Their business model is to “transform consumers into socially conscious world changers, one transaction at a time” and provide developing countries with clean water, planting trees, building schools, and many more.

Two years ago, I got the chance to experience We Day first hand. I remember I sat front row and seeing the sweat of the guest speakers on stage. Hearing successful stories of humanitarians and philanthropists was extremely inspiring and it encouraged me to make a difference, starting within my community. I think We Day is a great event to promote to the youth Me to We’s mandate of social responsibility. Reaching out to the youth will make a significant impact on future generations of businesses and other social enterprises or charities.

Hopefully, we’ll see many more social entrepreneurs emerge with different visions of decreasing the unemployment rate, increasing education, and providing clean water worldwide and shelter. Sometimes, having the largest bank statement isn’t always the most profitable; making a positive change in the world may be much more rewarding.

As Professor Gateman says, “go out there and make a difference.”