Month: October 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/businessspecial4/18toyota.html?_r=1&src=busln
The article, “Bullish Signals from G.M. and Toyota” by Nick Bunkley, determined that since the economy is recovering Toyota will resume construction at their plant in Mississippi instead of their California plant. Furthermore, the only reason that Toyota has concluded with this decision is because of the absence of unionized workers in the plant at Mississippi. As a result, Toyota will be able to pay their employees below the normal wage. My analysis suggests that the action taken by Toyota reveals their true organizational culture: maximizing profit. In doing so, the culture of the business resembles a mechanistic model, representing unethical values and morals. In order to minimize costs, Toyota plans to shift their manufactory to Mississippi, allowing them to pay their employees cheaper than their plant in California. One of the threats in this decision is the outrage from union workers who lost their job with Toyota during the economic recession. Bob King – president of the United Automobile Workers Union (U.A.W.) – has mustered support against Toyota, declaring their business decision as “anti-union.” In addition, Mr. King threatened Toyota that they will discuss this matter with the Obama administration. Thus, Toyota is demonstrating unethical values, portraying their organization culture as materialistic and capitalistic.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/10/07/f-environment-green-thanksgiving.html

The article, “Green Thanksgiving gains grown,” suggests that the public interest for organic food has increased dramatically, especially during Thanksgiving. More and more people are becoming conscious about the environment; therefore, they are willing to pay more for sustainable food. The organic food industry needs to capitalize on this new perspective on organic foods, allowing the market to grow dramatically. During Thanksgiving, the demand for sustainable turkey is elastic because people are still in the transition to organic foods. Furthermore, if the price of sustainable turkey is too high, people will purchase ordinary turkeys. Yet, the organic foods industry should not really worry because the views on organic food have greatly improved over the years. People want to know where their food comes from. As a result, Aubin Farms have initiated a business tactic that allows potential customers to experience the farm life, allowing them to acknowledge that their food is sustainable. Thus, this tactic will lead to the success of their business strategy- increase in demand for organic food.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hErvV5YEHkE

My analysis on the documentary of Monsanto – “The World According to Monsanto” – determines that this business makes rational and profitable decisions yet it is ethically wrong. From a business point of view, Monsanto genetically alter seeds to only produce crops once in their life-time which forces the farmers to purchase these seeds again. Therefore, Monsanto can have a continuous source of customers who rely on their seeds for growing crops. With these innovative methods of agriculture, Monsanto is able to decrease the variable cost that will also increase the contribution margin. From an ethical viewpoint, Monsanto is a callous and unscrupulous company that takes advantage from unwitting farmers. In my opinion, it is morally unethical to alter what is naturally made. In addition, it is scientifically proven in the documentary that crops made from Monsanto are highly correlated to causing cancer. Blinded by greed, Monsanto ignores the physical harm that they contribute not only to nature but also people. These genetically altered seeds are able to infect and destroy other seeds that have not been altered. Monsanto is truly an ingenious agricultural business but the way that the company approaches its goals is despicable and sordid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/if-universities-were-in-business-theyd-be-out-of-business/article1740246/

My analysis on the article, “If universities were in business, they’d be out of business” by Gwyn Morgan, reveals interesting topics that challenge university’s methods of teaching. The idea that professors show up only occasionally, sending harried, low-paid graduate students to teach so they can concentrate on their personal research astounds my belief1 . Perplexed by the thought that some professors care more about their research than teaching their students worries me. Comparing a university to a business alludes to the sense that universities can not survive as a business. The goal is to instill knowledge and confidence in students but the article explains that some professors do not properly prepare students for the business world. Therefore, universities do not achieve their goals. My analysis on the article also reinforces the idea that lectures, which contain over 300 students, are utterly useless. If students are sent into the workforce with the knowledge of how to make SWOT analysis or fishbone analysis is a waste of time if the students do not understand them. Without proper teachings from professors and graduate students, this may be a reality for many students who enter the workforce.

1 =If Universities Were in Business, They’d be out of Business – The Globe and Mail.” Home – The Globe and Mail. Web. 04 Oct. 2010. .