Month: October 2012

In light of our classes about corporate social responsibility, The Body Shop immediately comes to mind. The founder and one of the richest women in England with a net worth of more than $200 million, Anita Roddick, is clearly an entrepreneur mindful of both the market demand—cosmetics—and the message her cosmetic products embody to appeal to consumer behaviour—concern for the environment. Combining these two aspects together create a differentiated business venture with many strengths and opportunities to capitalize on.

However, while browsing The Body Shop’s website, the line between its role as traditional and social enterprise does appear to be at times blurred. As the homepage quotes Roddick’s personal statement on the purpose of enterprises, “The business of business should not just be about money, it should be about responsibility. It should be about public good, not private greed.” From this, it seems that she places a much greater emphasize on generating societal change as opposed to maximizing private. If this was The Body Shop’s official mission statement, such a business may be classified as a social enterprise rather than a socially responsible corporation. But the question remains: To what extent is the line defined between a socially responsible enterprise and a social enterprise?

Image via: http://rougebeauty.co.za/brand-body-shop/

There’s no doubt that the rate of economic growth experienced around the world—namely in NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries) such as China and India—has been enormous in past years. Like my classmate Mandy Xu, I too hear stories from my parents relating their childhoods of the Cultural Revolution to the vastly different and technologically advanced China of today and initially thought that the present growth comprised solely positive progress. However, according to the World Bank’s report on the quality of growth, 16 of the 20 most air-polluted cities are in China. The question “Are we growing too fast?” Mandy prompts us to ask ourselves whilst enjoying the benefits of the economic boom resonates deeply with the inevitable issues that go hand in hand with the “progress” I once saw through a purely favourable lens.

We frequently view economic growth and environmental protection—generally implied through clean air and water, healthy levels of wildlife population and biodiversity—as two, almost opposing ends of the spectrum. Trade-offs are inevitable right? Not at all. In fact, as John Parker of The Economist coins it, “green growth” is key to global development. The common perspective “Get rich first, then clean up” fails to see how environmental degradation actually hinders economic growth. My classmate Katya Sen details how Sempra Energy stationed its power plant in Mexico to avoid stricter American environmental regulations. The lack of restriction resulted in consequences to not only the environment but to locals’ health, highlighting how firms and governments often reject the notion of protection in exchange for profits.

We need to see the environment as a form of natural capital and that when properly invested in and integrated in governmental policies, environmental conservation has in fact huge potential to both accelerate and sustain—not hinder nor limit—economic growth and ultimately our standards of living for generations to come.

Image via: http://islandbountyblog.wordpress.com/category/world-food-crisis/

During October 2^nd’s class, we were briefly shown an old McDonald’s advertisement of a baby swinging and smiling only at moments when he/she swung high enough to see the McDonald’s sign from the window and crying otherwise. What seems like harmless fun for older audiences may in fact be misunderstood by younger audiences who are less able to think critically, underscoring the implications of at times controversial marketing techniques and the responsibility of marketers and parents concerning more vulnerable audiences.

As Rebecca Clay writes in an article published by the American Psychological Association, the effect advertisers have on children can be profound and are generally focused on increasing profits rather than helping children. Children under 12 are already spending $28 billion a year and influence an additional $249 billion spent by their parents; it’s clear that children seem to have a special role in decision-making of a family’s purchases. As a result, children are now becoming the bullseye target for advertisers and more exposed than ever to consumer culture and unhealthy habits.

However, even though external influences like TV ads are making such strong impressions on children, the blame should not solely fall on the media or the government’s shoulders. I believe parents also have a great responsibility to take a limiting stance and talk candidly to their children when appropriate. Therefore, it is imperative that all three parties work together to regulate and restrict what is seen, heard and believed by children in their daily lives.

Image via: http://farstarblog.com/?p=427