During the 1970’s, in efforts to try and slow down China’s rapidly growing population, the government implemented the one child policy rule. On October 29^th of this year, China’s one child policy was dropped to allow married couples to have two children. The main factors being that China is currently facing: a labor shortage, an aging society and an economic slowdown. In an effort to spark a baby boom and save the aging and declining workforce, the Chinese government has changed its policies. At the rate China is currently going, there are simply not enough workers to push the economy forward into the future.

 

In the past, those caught having more than one child had to endure forced abortions and sterilizations, ridiculous fines and
possibly the demolition of homes. With the ability to now have two children, many see this as the government giving the public more freedom, and in turn they should feel triumph and relief. For example, Bob McTeer comments in his blog that the whether or not the policy effect the economy “misses the more important point that a big dose of freedom has been granted”.

 

In my opinion, this is simply an act by the Chinese Communist Party to manipulate the public to allow them to remain in power. The fact of the matter is that there should be no restrictions on how many children the Chinese people want to have. There is not really full freedom granted if there are still restrictions on freedoms such as the number of children to have.  In addition, I do not feel this is the correct solution to changing the current situation in China. The Chinese economy is in a state of economic decline, and as a result having children is the last thing on people’s minds. The costs behind having and supporting a child are extremely high, especially for the working class (the people the Chinese government are trying to target by changing this policy). I feel the first solution to the problem is to fix the economy, and get it to a stable state, then they can start to convince the public to have more children.

 

External Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/china/china-one-child-policy-ends-mckenzie/index.html 

TOMS is a world known shoe company famous for its unique look and its “one for one” business model. For every pair of shoes purchased, TOMS donates a pair to someone in need. Some believe this plan unintentionally causes harm as it tries to do good, as it can hurt local businesses and may not address the deeper causes of poverty.

 

Personally, I agree with and support TOMS “one for one” business model because I believe no matter what, they are creating a social impact. It doesn’t matter whether or not these people they are helping become dependant or not, what I personally believe makes a huge impact to an individual’s life is knowing that someone cares about you, that they know they are worth something. For example, giving someone in need a pair of shoes can help them avoid soil-transmitted diseases and cuts and sores that may become infected, or  go to school in areas where children are not allowed to attend barefoot. TOMS states that their actions “help address need and advance health, education and economic opportunity for children and their communities around the world”.

 

In my opinion, the thought and idea behind their “one for one” business model was originally an idea with good intentions which eventually turned into a business model. After undergoing criticism, they have improved their business model by giving different types of shoes based on terrain and season, or by creating local jobs by producing shoes in countries where they give. By doing this, they are no longer taking jobs away from local business, but in contrast allows them to flourish. The intentions behind the business model are good, and have shown other companies this model can be profitable. They have also demonstrated and shown to the world that they care about more than just their sales, they care for the greater good of many different communities. 

 

External Sources:

http://www.toms.com/corporate-responsibility 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business-model-social-impact-avoiding-unintended-consequences/

 

 

          This spring, Playboy has announced they will stop the publishing of nude photos, as part of a plan to redesign their company. With the easy accessibility of internet pornography, the images that Playboy provides have now become “passé”, as according to CEO Scott Flanders. Playboy is simply rebranding to keep up with its competitors. In August, their website stopped the publishing of nude images, and as a result their viewers expanded from 4 million to 16 million, a 400% increase. Opinions range from those who question the move, to others feeling change can be a good thing. The company itself notes that it may be a risk to go “non nude”, after all, “if you take nudity out, what’s left?”

Like Hafu and Eileen‘s posts on Playboy to end publishing nudes, I agree that this change in rebranding is overall a good business move, as it shows Playboy is able to keep up with changing times and advances in technology. Playboy is up against the internet, and it simply cannot compete against such a great force. It shows they really understand and have a grasp on their competitors, and know what they need to do to stand out. In addition, I feel this redesign in the company will appeal to new readers, and potentially could be of greater interest to women. Although the perception of what Playboy is will never change, they have used their reputation to implement what I believe to be a positive change.

Blogs Referenced:

http://blogs.ubc.ca/eileenli/2015/10/26/36/ 

http://blogs.ubc.ca/hafu/

External Sources:

http://ca.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/10/playboy-stops-publishing-nudes-photos 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/playboy-stop-publishing-nudes_561c736fe4b028dd7ea4ef61 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/13/playboy-magazine-nude-pictures-internet-porn/73856022/ 

Sophia D’Aguiar recently wrote a blogpost commenting on Chipotle previously being in the news about dropping a pork vendor after finding out the supplier failed to keep up with Chipotle’s “high” standards for animal welfare. Chipotle boasts about having “responsibly” raised standards for their pork, in which pigs are raised with access to the outdoors or deeply bedded barns without the use of antibiotics. As a result, 1/3 of Chipotle’s outlets stopped serving pork for a couple months, but this “carnitas crisis” has now been resolved.

Sophia commented on this news story stating, “with customers becoming increasingly aware of animal-welfare and increasingly interested in which of their favorite restaurants respect the animals, it is important for companies like Chipotle to maintain a strict policy.” Personally, I feel that it is incorrect to say that companies such as Chipotle “respect” the animals. If you respect animals, you simply would not eat them. What difference does it really make to the animals if they are going to be killed anyways? Yes, it makes a difference to the quality of the pork that humans consume, but  it does not make a difference to the wellbeing of the creatures. Chipotle states on their website that they have the standards they have and do what they do “for the animals”. This statement is completely contradictory as they are simply doing nothing for the animals, they are slaughtering them.

I have to agree that this is a step up in comparison to the way animals are treated in other fast food industries, but still in my opinion does not have anything to do with the respect of animals.

External sources:

http://blogs.ubc.ca/sdaguiar/2015/10/04/chipotle-and-the-fight-to-maintain-ethical-standards/ 

http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/chipotle-carnitasreturn/ 

http://chipotle.com/carnitas

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/14/news/companies/chipotlecarnitas-pork/index.html?iid=EL

 

 

 

Barbie has just come out with a new ad, a video demonstrating what it would look like if girls are free to be who they want to be. Created in 1959, Barbie was Mattel’s best selling toy till 2011. This new ad for the campaign “Imagine the Possibilities” uses hidden cameras to capture people’s reactions to girls imagining what they want to become. This is a genius marketing strategy which rebrands and creates a new image for what has been known to be an extremely controversial toy. To some, Barbie is a symbol of female empowerment, to others a toy which reinforces gender stereotypes and an unrealistic body image. Barbie created a new brand identity, by changing how they were once perceived and combating them with today’s top social issues, in this case women’s empowerment.

Personally, I think this was a genius marketing strategy to try and alter the way people see Barbie dolls. They are dolls known for having unrealistic and perfect bodies, in addition to effecting body image, body satisfaction and of young girls. Whether or not this marketing strategy will be successful or not is up to the public’s opinion.

Growing up, my parents were against the idea of Barbie dolls, as they were opposed to the ideas of young girls believing these dolls were what they were supposed to one day become.  I feel that this was a great solution to try to tackle and combat their previous reputation, but for a lot of people including myself, I feel that their reputation has been tarnished, and in my mind whatever they do, they will always continue to represent unrealistic body image and female insecurities.

 

External Sources:

http://www.barbie.com/en-us/video/imagine-the-possibilitiesVIDEO LINK    http://firsttoknow.com/barbie-imagine-the-possibilities-video-revitalizes-iconic-character/

 

The World Health Organization recently came out with a statement declaring that processed meats such as bacon, sausages and ham are carcinogenic to humans. According to the statement, consuming 50 grams of processed meats a day increases chances of developing colon cancer by 18%. The statement also stated that red meats “probably” cause cancer as it has been linked to higher chances of developing pancreatic and prostate cancer. The chemicals and ingredients involved in processing these foods and to enhance color, flavor and shelf life are the main sources. These processed meats have been placed in the same category as smoking cigarettes and asbestos, but are not equally dangerous.

This statement does in fact have a huge impact on society today, as growing numbers of the population have been cutting meat out of their diet. But when statements like this come out, one of two things can happen. First of all, similar to food scares in the past, it makes an immediate impact on society, then eventually will bounce back to the way it was. Secondly, people can choose to ignore it altogether. With this being said, Americans for example will most likely not be stopping their consumption of meat anytime soon, as people have been eating meat for thousands of years. I feel it may not have a direct, serious and immediate impact on our generation today, but certainly for those in the future, it does play a key role. Based on the information previously stated, this statement will most likely have a minimal impact on the meat industry. It may lead to a slight decrease in the sales of red meat as people may start to favour chicken or turkey.  People may be more conscious of what they are consuming, but will most likely continue to consume as they have. Essentially, I believe it essentially really comes down to how much one values their health, and how much risk one is willing to take with their health. Being a vegan for health reasons, this statement backs up my reasons exactly for changing my diet.

External Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancer-world-health-organization/index.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cancer-red-meat-processed-1.3289580

On October 5, American Apparel filed for bankruptcy with US courts. After dealing with loads of debt and lawsuits, the company famous for its “made in America” approach has come to terms with the future, that it simply cannot continue to support itself. The company grew too big too fast, and took on too much debt. American Apparel has featured orthodox Jewish models, a 62-year-old model and models of every race. This cultural diversity has helped it appeal to countries outside the US, and has allowed it to open 260 stores across 19 countries.

 

The company itself has valuable assets, a good brand name, but no corporate governance. Founder of the company Dov Charney was fired back in 2014 due to sexual harassment lawsuits and misuse of corporate funds. When American Apparel was first founded in 1989, they boasted about paying workers twice the minimum wage, while protesting against and outlawing the use of clothing made in sweatshops. Not only was this good publicity, but their products were very appealing to customers, recognized worldwide and as a result, the company grew rapidly. The one thing that American Apparel failed to do was change while their company grew. They relied on their signature garments and failed to diversify their product range. In a short period of time their customer base found similar and cheaper alternatives. After a number of non politically correct marketing strategies and a police raid on a factory, in which authorities found 1/3 of staff had entered the country illegally, customers eventually were confused by the overall corporate message American Apparel was trying to send.

 

The corporate marketing and advertising direction had lost its vision and values. American Apparel once stood for something that mattered so much to so many people, but now has let itself and its workers down. I agree with the CEO’s decision to file for bankruptcy, as I feel that the image of the company has been tarnished, and would be a lost cause to try and improve upon it. That combined with the mountains of debt burdened on the company would make the situation simply impossible to overcome. I feel that the founder of the company has ruined an irreplaceable relationship and link with the consumers. They had a really strong and powerful value proposition as lots of people agreed with American Apparel’s sweatshop free manufacturing approach. All things considered, American Apparel was and could have continued to be a really dominant competitor in the retail industry. But due to lack of change and commitment to the company and its vision, American Apparel failed to deliver and overall made the right decision to file for bankruptcy.

External Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edmundingham/2015/10/06/ouch-american-apparels-bumpy-ride-may-end-with-a-bankruptcy-but-theres-lessons-for-entrepreneurs/4/  

 

 

With another shooting rampage Oregon’s Umpqua Community College on October 1^st, gun violence is yet again a popular topic globally. With 10 people dead including the killer, the issue of gun control and laws is yet again at the forefront.  The issue is that America has a gun violence problem, and they seem unable and unwilling to solve it. For instance, no one from the Republican party is prepared to take a stand against these weapons. When Jeb Bush was recently asked about gun violence in America, he replied that “this kind of stuff happens.”

The one thing that people often leave out when thinking about a tragedy like this is the strain this puts on the economy. The total cost on gun violence in The United States exceeds $229 billion, which is more than the US government spends on obesity. This total includes costs for emergency services, police investigations, long term medical and mental healthcare, court, prison costs, lost income, losses to employers and the impact on quality of life. Not to mention the loss of life for the families and communities affected. Single gun homicide costs $400,000 for which Americans pay for 32 times per day. Even for events such as gun seminars and gun safety classes to prevent gun violence, it adds up to be mass amounts of spending for the US economy.

 

All things considered, personally myself and a lot of moral people would agree that guns needs to be illegal and banned in America, and thorough background checks need to be done on those wishing to have a gun in their possession. But on the flip side, one must consider the fact that if guns are illegal, an entire industry in the US economy would go out of business. Countless people are employed through the gun industry, and this would also cause a strain on the economy. For these reasons, this is why there is such a huge debate on guns and weapons in the United States. The second amendment in the US constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms. This does not necessarily mean assault weapons, automatic weapons or multiple round hand guns. When you consider the numbers, over 10,000 Americans are killed by gun violence every year, and this number will continue to rise if nothing is done about this issue. Even with the loss of a whole economic sector, the lives lost are far more valuable, and the costs associated with this kind of violence is far too great.

 

 

A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating what types of behaviours are generally considered acceptable, appropriate or desirable for a person based on their actual or perceived sex. Recent studies have shown; gender roles help the economy. According to a study done by McKinsey Global Institute, if women played an identical role as men in the workforce, it could boost the annual Global GDP by $28 trillion in 2025. Increasing women’s participation in the labor force could provide the biggest boost to the GDP, could reduce income inequality, close the gap between number of hours worked by men and women, shift women into higher productivity sectors and tackle poverty. Overall, all economies in the world stand to gain.

 

Personally, I feel that many people can not comprehend that achieving this $28 trillion in Global GDP is actually possible. It is so shocking that something so simple such as allowing women to reach their full economic potential could boost the economy so much. There simply is no reason now for countries to allow women not to reach their full economic potential as they simply have nothing to lose, absolutely everyone in this situation has something to gain. Although gender stereotypes are hard to break, but society as a whole must come together and realize that individual and women contributions are so valuable. Allowing women to have identical roles in the workplace is not only something which is morally correct, but also a huge economic benefit.

 

External Sources:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/09/24/want-to-boost-global-growth-by-trillions-improve-gender-equality-mckinsey-report-says/

It is no surprise that in this day in age, the LGBT community is growing and widely accepted. Recently, major companies such as Google, Microsoft, Coca Cola, AT&T, Proctor and Gamble and others have joined a new coalition to push for LGBT rights in the workplace, mainly in response to the setbacks for LGBT rights in several countries. This coalition aims to provide a platform to talk about LGBT workplace protections as well as providing companies with advice on how to implement LGBT policies where legal protections may not be applicable.

 

I personally think this is a fantastic idea for companies to be a part of this coalition. There are many positive business impacts of LGBT equality in the workplace. If companies identify themselves as LGBT inclusive, they will see an influx of LGBT workers who are proud to be working for their company, and genuinely want to work for them. In addition, they will see an increase in overall health of their workers as there will be less workplace related illnesses, a decrease in legal costs, and a decrease in health insurance costs. Workers will be less stressed, more relaxed, happy, exhibit better performance, therefore improving productivity, job satisfaction and relationships. A huge advantage for these companies is that this will create a more diverse and creative workforce. Take CEO of Apple Tim Cook for example, he recently spoke out about being gay in the workforce. If he had not felt comfortable working for Apple, Apple would have lost a very valuable key player. In other news,  Doritos has launched rainbow chips in support of the LGBT community, with all proceeds going to the It Gets Better Project. Due to the incredible amount of support Doritos has received, all bags of limited-edition Doritos Rainbows have been claimed, and they currently do not have anymore.

 

Overall, the decision for these companies to join this coalition does not only benefit themselves significantly, but also sends a very powerful signal to the whole generation, that this is the time for gender equality.

 

External Sources:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2247516/major-companies-form-group-to-push-for-lgbt-rights-globally/

http://www.glaad.org/blog/value-lgbt-equality-workplace