Sony chief executive Kazuo Hirai has been struggling to turn around its television and smartphone businesses

With an increasing competition in the television and smartphone industries, Sony has been struggling to generate profits. Apple and Samsung, in particular, have been its major competitors as they are now leading the electronics industry. Consequently, Sony is unable to return dividends to its shareholders and plans to cut staff in the mobile phone unit by 15% to reduce costs.

Sony’s Early Downhill

Using the Ishikawa diagram, we can infer that Sony’s bankruptcy is partly due to local competition and limited distribution in countries with its target market such as China and US. Recently, Sony has culled 5,000 jobs from its computer and television unit. This affects Sony’s key resources and cost structure in its Business Canvas. Although Sony can reduce costs by making its employees redundant, this might also result in a negative corporate image, which can therefore dampen consumer’s confidence in even more.

Recapturing the Market

In conclusion, Sony needs to weigh the consequences in its decision to resolve this issue because of the potential gradual brand deterioration of the company. In the short-term although it seems that Sony’s profit margin is increasing due to lower costs, it will still experience falling market share, as consumers switch to other competitors. Thus, Sony can try improving its competitive advantage through launching new, innovative products to capture the market again.

Cost of business makes it an ‘uphill battle’ for the likes of Belu and One Water aiming to make a dent in the world’s water crisis

source: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/01/ethical-bottled-water-companies-nestle-coke

Ethical bottled water companies such as Belu and One Water struggle to make a dent in the world’s water crisis due to their limited manufacturing capability and investment. Concurrently, big companies like Danone and Starbucks are criticized to contribute only as a marketing play. Danone’s ‘Drink 1, Give 10’ campaign donated only $0.28 per bottle whilst Starbucks gives away a mere $0.05 from the cost of a $1.80 bottle of Ethos water.

According to Friedman’s article, corporate executives would spend someone else’s money for a general social interest. For instance, Starbucks’s Ethos water costs customers more, thus customers (as part of the society) also suffer from a lower proportion of income left after buying the product.Although Freeman’s stakeholder theory emphasizes that a successful business must unify every stakeholder’s interest, it is highly improbable because stakeholders have conflicting interests.

Thus, a third party (e.g. government) can interfere to help the smaller ethical companies through tax exemption or subsidy (which can be obtained through tax revenue from bigger companies) so that they can expand faster and eventually compete in the market, thereby leading to help those without clean drinking water. In conclusion, with government’s assistance, corporate social responsibility can succeed given that resources are now allocated more efficiently.