The given blog provides “10 Innovative Ways To Reward Your Employees”. This blog raises numerous interesting points, all of which undermine the importance of not only rewarding employees today, but also motivating them for the future. In reading this blog I was constantly reminded of Zappos shoes- simple gestures that acknowledge the effort of workers creates large payoffs for the entire company. On a higher level, I see this blog being intertwined with organizational behavior in the sense that it looks to create unification or a driving force among an entire company. However, I believe the author of this blog undermines the importance that each of the given incentives must be done in moderation. If not properly utilized, the benefits of these incentives can lead workers to make “short cuts” in order to get more rewards, as we have seen with traditional methods of rewarding employees such as cash bonuses. The desire to reap the benefits of a reward can pressure workers into making unethical and ill-motivated decisions. Acknowledging that the innovative reward system created by the author is not immune to such complications is crucial for employers. I believe the author of these ideas is on the right track by looking to create an alternative reward system, but needs to go back and reevaluate the logistics of how these rewards should be carried out to ensure workers do not become motivated for the wrong reasons.

Original blog:

http://www.wisebread.com/small-business/10-innovative-ways-to-reward-your-employees

Photo:

http://nairabrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Employee-Motivation.jpg

The most significant differentiating factor between the UN and social entrepreneurship is politics. Simply put, there is too much bureaucratic red tape associated with the UN for them to carryout their goals. Furthermore, a number of countries in the UN have conflicting interests that also hinder their ability to provide effective aid to countries in need, regardless of funding. Both of these factors ultimately lead to a lack of direction and unification in the actions taken by the UN, rendering many of their efforts futile. As a result of this lack of direction, the UN tends to establish international diplomacy instead of directly creating tangible solutions to the problems faced by impoverished nations. On the other hand, social enterprise and the ARC initiative look to create innovation and opportunities for developing countries; social entrepreneurship is not limited to the regulations and restrictions faced by the UN. In a world where the UN is fully funded, social enterprise would still be unique in the sense that it provides impoverished nations with the means to lift them selves out of poverty, and does not “throw money” at their issues. Specifically, the “ARC initiative” and other social enterprises such as micro-finance are able to directly impact the economy of impoverished nations. By creating sustainable solutions, such initiatives contribute to stimulating an entire economy for generations to come. It would be naïve to undermine the importance and impact of the UN, but I still believe that social enterprise creates a change that is unparalleled.

Has Norway found a solution to Canada’s Oil problems? According to the given article, the answer is yes. By tightening up their carbon-taxes, creating a crown oil company and a sovereign wealth fund, Norway is able to lessen their necessity of oil and create green initiatives. I believe it is crucial that the Canadian government looks to follow Norway’s footsteps. By raising our carbon tax, the Canadian government would discourage the production of carbon emissions, while receiving billions of dollars from large oil companies. The government could then re-invest this money to stimulate the economy, and cut the taxes placed on labor and income. Reduced taxes on the labor and income would result in more money in taxpayers pockets that would further stimulate the economy, benefiting the entire business community. In a sense, I view this system as a full-circle providing economic and environmental benefit to the general public. However, I also understand the implications of employing such a system, especially as Canada is heavily oil dependent. I view the combination of sustainability with economic stability and growth as one of the greatest challenges in the current global community. Thus, I believe it is crucial that Canada looks to learn from the success from Norway, and perhaps look to streamline their current system. Norway’s national competitive market and high GDP suggests that they may have found a sustainable solution, giving the Canadian government some food for thought.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/norway-proves-oil-rich-nations-can-be-both-green-and-prosperous/article21514455/

Southwest Airlines (SA) has made a horrible mistake. As written in the above article, Southwest failed to comply with proper maintenance standards with their airplanes and is now facing a lawsuit from the FAA. So, what does this mean for Southwest? Simply put, they are creating their own barriers to enter the Canadian market. At a time when they are looking to expand into Canada and extend their customer basis, Southwest should be extra cautious in all aspects of their business especially customer safety. By failing to comply with the government set standards, SA has now damaged their brand reputation and reliability- two aspects of the airline business that directly impact profit. Although SA is looking to challenge the lawsuit, I argue that their attempts will be unable to salvage their brand reputation. I acknowledge that this lawsuit will not “run them out of business”, I am, however, perplexed by their recklessness during a pivotal time-period of their business. In moving forward, I would recommend that SA increase their marketing budget to recapture their customer base and re-establish themselves as a “top quality airline”. We have seen with Westjet’s Christmas marketing campaign, that a proper marketing strategy can yield large payoffs with customers. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit affects SA’s transition into the Canadian market- only time will tell.

References:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/11/aeroplane-maintenance

In response to Akbar’s Blog Post regarding the declining market for “Jell-O”, I would agree with his suggestion that they have to “approach a slightly different market now”. I recommend that Kraft, the creator of Jell-O, try to create a healthier alternative to their current product. Financially, Jell-O is seeing an extreme decline in sales and revenue. This drop in demand for Jell-O products is not temporary and has a direct correlation to a raise in nation-wide nutritional standards, endorsed by the government through various healthy eating initiatives. This external threat to their target demographic far outweighs any point of difference Jell-O has to offer to consumers; throwing more money at their marketing campaign will not be able to remove the stigma from “sugary desserts”.  However, Jell-O and Kraft still have strong brand names that could easily penetrate a different segment of the snack-food market. As quoted by analyst Harry Balzer “There’s a lot of snacks that are very functional and make rational, logical sense to consumers”. I believe that kraft should divest their time and capital in Jell-O and look to reinvest it into such a product.

The greatest danger to the Northern Gateway pipeline is in the Pacific Northwest. The Haisla First Nations have rejected Enbridge in using their land for the Gateway. The Haisla First Nations have allowed a liquefied natural gas pipeline on their land in the past, receiving a total of $60 million in return. The unique aspect of this story lies in the fact that the Haisla First nations are not business-uncanny; they are, however, strongly opposed to crude oil. Enbridge, the backer of the pipeline, is in a very difficult situation. They are dealing with a party that is willing to do business with them, but one that is not willing to adhere to the environmental aspects of their deal. In this instance, I do not see an easy way for Enbridge to create a win-win scenario. As the Haisla First Nations claim, “no amount of money can buy support” it appears as though Enbridge is a stand still. However, Enbridge could still argue the legality and logistics behind a project being diverted due to the national, environmental, and financial interests of the Haisla First Nations, they could still carry through with the project. Now Enbridge must ask themselves, at what cost to the Haisla Nation are they willing to go through with the Northern Gateway Pipeline?

In response to Evan’s post, I would agree with his insight and foresight regarding Starbucks’ launch of the “Express Cafe”. Eliminating one of their key factors that turns away customers- long lineups- looks like it will increase their sales without question. However, Starbucks must take into account the number of customers that purchase their “higher end” drinks that are not provided at express stores. The article suggest that customers are attracted to quicker service, but does not state that they are willing to give up their higher end drinks to reduce wait time. One would assume that a company that has such strong business operations would want to create market research before entering an untested market. Whether it is through customer surveys, or any other forms of statistical analysis, I would highly recommend that Starbucks weighs the benefits and setbacks of opening stores of this nature. I advise Starbucks to proceed with caution while opening express coffee stores, and to carry out this new business model slowly. Fortunately, Starbucks has the necessary capital to venture into an untested market without needing to worry about financial disaster. It is crucial that they ask themselves if customers are willing to sacrifice variety for shorter wait times.

Source:

Joe On-the-Go: Starbucks’ New Express Cafés

Blackberry has found a lifeline. The release of their newest phone, the “Passport”, received mixed reviews from critics. The product release of the Passport ultimately rebranded Blackberry as a niche company that is strictly enterprise focused. Some say this “re-branding” has allowed Blackberry to competitively reposition themselves as a leader in a smaller share of the market. However, Blackberry’s new approach to tackling the phone industry is predicted to be short term.

Blackberry CEO, John Chen

If Blackberry is able to continue to position themselves as the industry leader in enterprise focused smart phones, I believe they will be able to control a large portion of the mobile-phone-enterprise market share for an extended period of time. It is crucial that they continue to focus on their points of difference rather than their points of parity. By focusing on their differentiating factors from other smartphones, Blackberry will be able maintain a competitive edge from competitors. Blackberry’s previous “melt-down” was the result of their inability to continue to innovate and remain assertive in their given market. Learning from their past mistakes, and managing expectations- acknowledging that they will own a larger portion of a smaller market- will allow Blackberry to rebrand their company  ultimately leading to growth.

Sources:

Silcoff, Sean. “Passport Sales Bode Well for BlackBerry, Analyst Says.” The Globe and Mail. 29

           Sept. 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.

Sony Ericsson Idou Phone

There is no question that the Sony Corporation (ADR) is struggling. A recent $1.7 billion impairment charge for the company is the result of a projected overall decline in their mobile phone sector. The current market for mobile phones is quickly developing and Sony simply can’t keep up; their share of the global smartphone market has dropped from 4% to 3.1% in one year. Furthermore, this is the first year since its inception that Sony will not be able to pay their shareholder’s a dividend. Sony is beginning to tear at the seams, and it is time for them to rebuild.

Sony’s current business strategy is to “reduce the size of the division, and concentrate on the fanciest smartphones”. Frankly, this is not the wisest decision for Sony. I would recommend that they completely shut down other mobile phone unit, and look to invest their time and resources elsewhere. Fortunately, Sony is such a large firm with such a wide variety of products that there are many viable alternative sectors for them to invest in. If a sector of a company is damaged to the point of no-recovery, it is only reasonable to “pull the plug”, is it not?

References

“Pouring Cold Water.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Sept. 2014. Web. 24 Sept.                   2014.

Beverage mogul “Coca-Cola” has recently been accused of exaggerating the environmental benefits of their highly praised “PlantBottle”- a bottle that is said to be up to thirty percent plant based. The overzealous marketing techniques employed by Coca-Cola do not comply with Denmark’s national Marketing Practices Act, according to the Dutch Consumer Ombudsmen.

     Coca-Cola’s inability to produce significant data to justify their claims, combined with their assertive marketing tactics has lead the environmental community, and myself, to condemn the company of an unethical practice known as “Green-Washing”. “Green-washing” is the act of deceptively utilizing “environmentally friendly” practices in order to increase the PR of a company, increasing sales in the process. These unethical practices tie in various aspects of Milton Friedman’s The Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Profits. By dramatizing their efforts to achieve sustainability, the company is attempting to align their ideologies with those of the socially conscious customer. The controversy lies in the deception they are using to announce such a commitment to the environment. The unique twist to this story arises in the fact that “Green Washing” is actually benefiting Coca-Cola as they were recently voted as the “Industry Champion of The Year” at the 2014 Sustainable Bio Awards. As Coca-Cola is technically not breaking any laws, they have the right to “make as much money as possible while still conforming to the basic rules of society”.

Work Cited:

http://www.ibtimes.com/coca-cola-company-ko-busted-greenwashing-plantbottle-marketing-exaggerated-environmental-benefits

The Social Responsibility to Increase Profits, Milton Friedman

Image:

http://www.supplychaindigital.com/public/uploads/large/large_article_im1832_Coca_Cola_PlantBottle.jpg