I am very interested in incorporating social responsibility and profit maximizing in business. I firmly believe that the two don’t have to be separate from one another, and that to work towards the one also means to work towards the other, which is why I enjoyed reading about CVS Caremark’s decision to stop selling tobacco through Bonnie Cheng’s blog post.

I agree that CVS’s act of responsibility (removing nicotine from the stores) is small compared to how much CVS actually makes and I agree that CVS isn’t actually losing much from “doing the right thing”- which proves that CVS in the end isn’t taking any risks out of character and morals but implementing another business strategy. While I agree with all of that, I also think that in this world that is infinitely complicated and multi-faceted, a “cloaked” business strategy that is still in line with Friedman’s idea that the only responsibility businesses have is to the shareholders, is still also an act of social responsibility that benefits both the business and the customer.

As in, businesses don’t have to lose and don’t have to work against profit (as Friedman thinks) through being socially responsible. It just takes a little bit of imagination, drive, and I guess- values, to make social responsibility work in a business.

Sources:

“CVS- ethical or merely strategic?”, https://blogs.ubc.ca/bonniecheng/

“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits”, Friedman

Enbridge has a lot to think about when building its pipeline, especially when the pipeline is to go through the land of 40 different First Nations groups, and especially when many of those groups are vocal in their stance against the pipeline.

First Nations groups are definitely an external factor that Enbridge must take into account when building their business model canvas, especially when protesting First Nations groups could jeopardize the entire process.

What is interesting to me is how Enbridge is going about gaining the support of the groups. It seems to me that they decided to gain support only after the construction date was set, and although (according to Enbridge’s calculations) only 40 % of groups directly affected by the pipeline have declined to set up a financial deal with Enbridge, Janet Holder believes that those groups will eventually sign on. And if the groups don’t sign on, senior executives will have to talk to those groups face-to-face.

This doesn’t look to me like Enbridge is taking this very serious external factor- the voices of those that will be greatly impacted by this pipeline- very seriously. It looks like they have already made the decision to build the pipeline and the first nations groups are only an obstacle that can be paid off or silenced.

This kind of external factor will affect the key partners and the customer relationship blocks of the canvas. How Enbridge deals with these groups is a reflection of their transparency and their trustworthiness, and how they are dealing with the First Nations groups (who could be considered major partners and stakeholders) is affecting their relationships with partners now and in the future.

Sources:

Hoekstra, Gordon. “”There Will Be No Pipeline”” Vancouver Sun. Vancouver Sun, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.

There are a lot of things I learned in class that helped me see why even an “iconic” store such as Stollerys may close down after 114 years.

This article from the Globe and Mail points out a few issues in Stollerys that led to its closing down. The issues are as follows: inability to compete with up and coming stores such as Holt Renfew & Co., inconsistencies, and failure to catch up with the changes of the times.

In class 7 we learned about the business model canvas and strategy. Although Stollerys could have taken advantage of their loyal customers, their brand name, and their iconic image, Stollerys still fell to newer competitors because they failed to find their “sustainable competitive advantage.” Although Stollerys knew its place within Porter’s Generic Strategy (focus strategy, differentiation), it failed to to change up its strategy as competitors came along. As in, it did just enough to “stay in the game, but not beat it.” I also think that its failure to start up an online component to the store (the store was open for 114 years, but an online store was set up just last year) was another huge undermining factor.

There are a lot of other companies I see doing the same thing as Stollerys- feeling too safe in its current position to change up their strategies.

References: -Strauss, Marina. “Iconic Upscale Men’s Wear Store to Close in Toronto.” The Globe and Mail. Globe and Mail, 4 Oct. 2014. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.

– Porter, Michael M. “Porter’s Generic Strategies.” Porter’s Generic Strategies. QuickMBA.com, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.