Culture heavily influences how companies and businesses operate. A company from the U.S., for example, will not function and work the same way as a company from the Philippines; they’ll have different expectations for employees, codes of conduct, and values. Because culture plays such a strong and influential role in business operations, both negative and positive impacts can be made. One startling example of such an impact is karoshi, a Japanese word defined as “death from overwork.”

As Jason Fan writes in his post “Karoshi – Death from Over Work“, “…workers in Japan are pushed too far in the work place and a more ethical method of running business needs to be considered.” This quote highlights how Japan’s work culture, described as having “the worst standards for long working hours among advanced nations“, actively harms the health and well-being of millions of people employed in Japan. As well, karoshi exemplifies how culture can negatively impact businesses and workers.

What does karoshi, a Japanese-centric problem, tell us about culture? It explains that although cultural differences, in most cases, are things to be celebrated, some differences in culture are negative in their impact and should be shunned and changed. Karoshi, especially, emphasizes this point, as it outright involves the death of people as a result of being pushed to their limits in the workplace.

What can be done to remedy this problem in Japanese businesses? In the same way that cultural differences can highlight how cultures can negatively impact businesses, exposure to, and understanding of, different cultures within the Japanese workplace can result in the opposite effect. By being familiar with work-hour regulations and worker protections in other nations, Japanese employees could realize that they, too, deserve reasonable hours from their employers as well as government protection. This, in turn, could lead to an overhaul in how Japan and its businesses operate in the future.

Word Count: 309

By this point in time, most people are familiar with the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Unethical and illegal business practices by one of the largest car manufacturers in the world, Volkswagen, resulted in numerous complaints, lawsuits, and fines against the German company. To date, Volkswagen “has paid out more than $20 billion to buy back or repair cars and pay criminal and civil fines and legal settlements related to the scandal.”

That astounding number, $20 billion, helps to highlight how damaging unethical and illegal business practices can be to companies. Contrastingly, that number also strongly emphasizes the importance of conducting business legally, ethically, and fairly. In this situation, one of the criterion for making ethical choices, the utilitarian criterion, was ignored; the company decided that profits for the company and its shareholders were more important than the millions of lives that were impacted by the above-regulation levels of pollution and emissions produced by their vehicles.

Scandals and unethical business conduction are not uncommon in the business world. Many companies in the past and present such as Enron, Wells Fargo, and Volkswagen have done unethical things for the sake of profit and corporate gain. In the case of Enron, the decisions made and the practices exercised by executives and employees of the firm resulted in the company’s bankruptcy back in 2001. As well, multiple high-profile individuals within the company were fined or jailed for their participation in the scandal. These cases of deception and shady business raise the question: Why do business do these things? Of course, the obvious answer is profits and financial gain. But beyond profits, what causes companies to do things even knowing that they’re morally wrong or illegal?

The answer is ethical work climate. The ethical work climate of a company, an extension of the firm’s organizational culture, establishes what actions or decisions are considered “right” or “wrong” within the company. In the cases of Enron and Volkswagen, their ethical work climates blurred the distinction between “right” and “wrong”, leading many people within both companies to disregard the moral implications and impacts of their decisions. Their punishments, however, are messages to companies saying that unethical business does not pay off.

Word Count: 359

Feedback is a tremendously powerful tool that is often taken for granted. I’m sure many of us have been in situations where we’ve said to ourselves “Am I doing this right?” or “I think there’s a better way to do this.” Reflecting on those moments now, we all likely would’ve wanted someone guiding us on how to do the job properly or outright telling us what we were doing wrong. As you reflect on those times in your life when you were lost and confused, you start to understand why feedback is so important and helpful.

In Karen Naumann’s “5 Reasons Why Feedback is Important“, she lists and details how providing and receiving feedback can help us grow as individuals, become more innovative, and propel us forward whenever we feel stuck. What really piqued my interest when reading her piece was learning about the impact that feedback can have on an individual’s sense of belonging, a deep connection that I hadn’t made. She writes that “the knowledge that what we do is meaningful and contributes to someone or something in a useful way for others, gives us a sense of purpose…”

This quote from the piece was what really put the value and important of feedback into perspective for me. Beyond just improving performance or fixing mistakes, feedback given to a person also lets that person know that they matter/are important, and that whoever/whatever is giving them the feedback cares about their success. The person receiving feedback, as a result, feels appreciated and acknowledged, leading to a stronger and deeper connection between the person and the provider of the feedback that is beneficial to everyone.

Feedback is powerful, underappreciated, and near effortless to take advantage of. Phrases like “What you did is good, but you could try doing this, too, to make it better” or “You’re doing a great job!” highlight how feedback can be so simple yet so effective, meaning there really isn’t an excuse to not give any!

Word Count: 329

Last week, the world witnessed a man who was once the centre of jokes and internet memes about his hair, small hands, and unfiltered language become President-elect of the United States. With worry and fear in the minds of millions over the direction the country will head with Republican Donald Trump as Chief of State, many are certain of one thing: nothing

Harlan Green, editor and publisher for an online business wire, describes the situation in his Huffington Post blog post, “What, Now A Trump Recession?” Throughout his presidential campaign, President-elect Trump’s rhetoric incited hate and anger towards one of the United States’ largest minority groups: Mexicans. In particular, he channelled his frustrations at illegal immigrants from America’s southern neighbour, stating that, as president, he would use his state powers to deport millions of illegal immigrants from the country. What does this entail for the U.S? Green states that this level of mass deportation would “devastate agriculture, construction, and any other industry that relies on low-cost labour…” resulting in a decline in the American economy. I concur with this sentiment, as the Pew Research Centre found in a 2014 study that 26% of agricultural workers and 15% of construction workers were undocumented. Deporting such a large number of workers, then, would undoubtedly lead to huge devaluations of, and damage to, the stocks of many publically-traded companies and businesses in these industries. Furthermore, agricultural companies and construction firms will be forced to change their operational strategies in order to adapt to this hypothetical reduction in workers. In the end, output and production levels in these industries will dramatically decrease, meaning food shortages in the U.S. and elsewhere, slow infrastructure development, and slow/stagnant economic growth. Beyond deportation, a Republican-controlled White House, Senate, and House of Representatives means the possible abolition of Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, endangering the millions of people who benefit from them.

Why am I examining this blog? For one, it tackles the side of illegal immigration that most people don’t acknowledge: its positive impact. The word illegal in itself means forbidden by law, so it subconsciously conjures up thoughts of criminal behaviour. Green, however, examines the situation objectively and fairly, recognising the real implications that mass deportation would have on U.S. industries and the U.S. economy as a whole. As well, the Huffington Post is a well-regarded online news source and blog, giving Green credibility.

From my perspective, all that is left to do is watch how the next four years will unfold. Much of Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign was inflammatory, provocative, and infeasible in nature, appealing to people unsatisfied with present-day politics and politicians. All we can hope for, now, is a good Trump presidency.

Word Count: 447

The current Western socio-political environment is in a volatile and unpredictable state.  With the ongoing Syrian crisis creating an influx of refugees, and xenophobes, in Europe and beyond, the rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM) in the U.S. over race relations, and statements of exclusion and division based on race and religion being declared by a certain presidential candidate, social issues are being thrust into the forefront. With that, then, comes “femvertising”.

“Femvertising”, described as creating “advertisements that aim to celebrate and empower women and girls,” has been employed over the years by corporations seeking to capitalize on the social movement towards female equal opportunity, self-loving, and empowerment. But is “femvertising” just a corporate marketing gimmick to increase profits by creating a false sense of corporate social responsibility? This is not always the case, but in some situations, yes.

In Tiffany Leung’s article “Feminism: The Newest Marketing Trend”, Dove is stated to be a brand “who strives to ‘[help women to] raise their self-esteem and realise their full potential’.” What separates Dove from other corporations that employ “femvertising” is that Dove goes beyond just claiming to care about women’s issues. With Dove, they realized that they needed to do more than just spew out empowering rhetoric, so they decided to create an entire campaign, the Dove Self-Esteem Project, with the aim to help young girls and women be comfortable with their bodies and with themselves. Dove’s tactics are an example of “femvertising” done right. Dove has created shared value with its consumers by reconceiving its products, mainly its soaps, into tools of empowerment and self-love as well as taking action towards achieving real social change.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are companies like H&M. Tiffany believes that the fashion conglomerate has established a positive brand image in the minds of consumers through “reorganization” in the company’s marketing approach, likely referencing the company’s advertisements involving women engaging in what is traditionally considered male behaviour or activity. However true that may be, and regardless of the ads’ positive messages, the reality of the situation is that H&M has frequently been criticized and investigated for its mistreatment of garment workers, comprised mostly of women, in the company’s factories overseas. Many of H&M’s factory workers have “reported either witnessing or experiencing termination of employment during pregnancy”, with sexual harassment also being strife. This, then, is a classic example of a company being unable to practice what it preaches, linking back to the false sense of corporate responsibility.

“Femvertising”, if done correctly, has the potential to spur real, positive change in how society views and treats women. Reaching this goal, then, means that corporations must truly believe in the messages that they sell.

Word Count: 450

The living wage, a polarizing concept defined as the minimum hourly wage a full-time worker must receive in order to be able to afford a normal standard of living, is being brought back into the national spotlight, this time in the form of protests in Quebec. After Alberta announced its plan to raise the minimum wage in the province to $15 by 2018, critics were vocal, citing future job losses and damage to small business owners as concerns. Proponents of the living wage, however, cite increases in the standard of living for the already employed, decreases in inequality for workers, and benefits for the economy in the long run as driving forces behind the movement to instate it. Let’s examine the facts and find out what could happen.

An increase in the minimum wage in Quebec, from $10.75/hr to $15.00/hr, would almost certainly increase unemployment in the province. This change in the macroeconomic environment, a macroeconomic force, pushes Quebec firms to re-examine their business models and trim down to become leaner by cutting jobs. At least in the short-run. As wages increase for unskilled workers, firms, then, are forced to adjust the wages of their skilled workers relative to the increase in the minimum wage. This results in more money in the pockets of consumers, which means more being spent on goods and services like shoes, electronics, and restaurant dining, and more money for companies. Higher revenues for firms and higher demand for their goods and services, then, means more employees needed by these companies to keep up with demand. Thus, more workers and labourers are hired, unemployment goes down, and most stakeholders are wealthier and happier than before.

With a result that seems to benefit all of society in the long run, why isn’t there unanimous, province-wide support? Besides the causes for concern already addressed in this post, Curtis Huang states, in his blog post on minimum wage changes in British Columbia, that increasing the minimum wage raises the standards and expectations of companies towards job applicants, meaning firms will demand workers with more experience, more references, and more qualifications (making it more difficult to get jobs). As well, he claims that companies will end up “charging customers more” through increased prices to offset the increase in their costs.

All the fears people have, of the uncertainty and the downsides, are all valid. Who wants to risk unemployment? Who wants to pay more for goods and services? Who wants a harder time landing a job? Nobody wants these things, but I strongly believe in aiming for greater societal benefit in the long term, albeit with short-term problems, rather than looking to fulfill our short-sighted desires for short-term satisfaction.

Word Count: 447

Oil, particularly its price, has been a concerning topic in the news over the past few years. As new, more efficient oil-collection technologies are developed and used, and as untapped sources of this liquid gold are quickly being located and drilled, the world’s supply of oil has seen a dramatic increase. Traditionally, global petroleum demand manages to keep up with global supply, with supply fluctuating above and below demand occasionally and vice versa.

This state of near market equilibrium was, in part, due to OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) actively engaging in supply regulation in order to maintain higher oil prices. But in 2014, the organization, in response to the increases in oil production by non-OPEC members that threatened OPEC market share, made the disastrous decision to uncap its oil production, a cost leadership strategy, in order to try to regain global market share. This change in OPEC’s operational strategy sent prices crashing down, which impacted, and still impacts, ALL petroleum-exporting nations’ revenue streams and their economies.

Now, two years later, OPEC has reversed its position and has enacted a plan to cut production “by up to 700,000 barrels a day later this year.” But will this be enough? I don’t believe so. After two years of near continuous and increasing petroleum output, there is now a huge surplus of oil on the market. This decision, however, is definitely a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done in order for there to be any change in the current oil-market landscape. A reduction of 700,000 barrels of oil PER DAY might seem like a significant change to those unfamiliar with actual global oil production, but seeing as OPEC produces approximately 33 MILLION barrels per day, with the world’s daily output standing at around an astounding 96 million barrels per day (as seen in the graph above), 700,000 barrels is comparatively insignificant.

Though the global supply of petroleum is the primary issue being addressed, the other half of the equation, global demand, should not be overlooked. As OPEC begins the process of reigning in production, some of oil’s largest consumers, the most notable one being China, have seen their economic growths begin to slow down. This is seriously alarming because if the world’s oil supplies are unable to be brought down to be in line with demand, this surplus of global petroleum could last for many years to come.

What can oil-producing nations do about this situation? The obvious answer here is to have them severely restrict their own petroleum production in an effort to curb the surplus. This, however, would mean losing their global market shares, a trade-off many countries are not willing to make.

Word count: 445