In this article, food and drink firms are called on to minimize their suppliers’ land grabbing. In light of the increasing demand for sugar by major food and Drinks companies like Coca Cola and PepsiCo among others, the source of this sugar has been pinpointed to cause problems in society. According to the report by Oxfam, (an international organization fighting poverty and injustice) sugar, soy and palm oil, are major causes of the large-scale land conflicts.
This is an ethical question on how much businesses should ensure that they undertake their transactions in a fair manner. However, is it their responsibility not to buy sugar until they have all the precise details of how their suppliers affect the society or any other parties? And how far are they expected to scrutinize the activities of their suppliers?
I agree they have a responsibility to ensure their activities have a positive impact on the environment and the society. However, extending their role to that of managing their partners is completely piling an extra role for them, which they do not deserve.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/oct/02/sugar-food-drink-land-grabs

Following the Chinese government’s lift on the international console ban, Microsoft hopes to sale the Xbox one to attain huge profits from the new market. With a population of about 1.36 billion, Microsoft can make huge sales. To maximize revenue, the Mehdi says Microsoft may ‘continue to price reduce’. Furthermore, Microsoft may also introduce cheaper additional brands since use of Xbox no longer requires kinect. This can be a great competitive advantage for Microsoft. However, rival products like PS3 and PS4 are likely to be in the search for markets in China. This industry has high competition and unless Microsoft can produce the cheaper versions of Xbox before December, it is likely lose out to its rivals.
The firm that will have the best combination of marketing and pricing techniques is likely to win a larger market share. The use of retailers is definitely a great way to promote the product, but can be combined with advertisements on billboards, internet and televisions.

As evident in this article, Apple has moved on to create more subsidiaries in other countries where the tax rates are lower, as a move to reduce their tax burden. However, there is a huge debate within the US government and in this article, the Apple Executive has been brought before legislators to respond on why they are trying to implement measures to ‘avoid tax’. Although it is legal for Apple to set up branches elsewhere and try to reduce the tax burden, the question is “how moral is such a move?”  Although the company has already paid about 6 billion dollars for tax, the estimated value that has been evaded is a lot higher. Taking into account that the company makes a lot of profit from people allover the world, and particularly from the US, I fully believe that it has a social responsibility to fully pay all the taxes. This is   because the same expenditure that they incur in terms of paying the taxes will eventually be used to provide social amenities and other government services to the public. The government is therefore, in my opinion, right to question Apple on their selfish move.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/24/opinion/la-le-0524-friday-apple-taxes-20130524