From a couple of sources on the 7th of October (2014), a project called ‘Collectively’ was released – a website which ‘celebrates’ and ‘connects’ cutting edge ideas that are ‘shaping the future of sustainability’. This is meant to be a collaboration between major companies such as Coca-Cola, Google and Marks & Spencer – and signals the increased focus on the concept of sustainability in the business world. Apparently, one of the key factors that sets Collectively apart from other different types of collaborations is the fact that multinational companies are behind this project. The home page details the media’s obsession with fear, and that the world is doomed due to humans and their actions. Allegedly, with the companies having ‘put aside their differences’ this promises to be an interesting and informative project, featuring high quality content.

An interesting point to note about this type of news is that while it has something to do with the sustainability aspect of a cooperation, it is difficult to pinpoint any 1 of the 3 ‘stages’ of sustainability that a company is engaged in. This is mainly due to the fact that it is not a production related project, but if one were to really attempt to categorize it, then it would definitely be in the ‘Innovation stage’, simply because this website looks to address some of the ‘big problems’ in society such as society and people’s perspective on our world and our actions, and aims to provide that ‘high quality content’ which was explained in the first paragraph.

This project can technically be very efficient. This is because most companies that have collaborated on this are well known, and it can only serve to boost each company’s image in terms of creating a more sustainability-conscious business. In a way, one could view the 29 companies as having made a ‘good investment’ in terms of brand name and brand image, which can ultimately help them in the long run. At the same time, publicity can be gained via the website, allowing companies to ally themselves with new partners. For the ‘not-so-well-known’ companies out of these 29 such as ‘The Dow Chemical Company’ (which I had never heard of prior to reading this), it can only increase recognition of the organization. This is achieved even without the companies having to advertise about their products, which they clearly specified as ‘having nothing to do with our brands’. In a way, the companies managed to assist themselves without ‘explicitly’ trying to do so. Overall, it seems that as people have started to take sustainability and ethical and social responsibility of companies into account, companies who choose to enter this field like the 29 here could hope for positive results due to this type of collaboration.

Source: Marketing Magazine UK

Summary:
As Enbridge wants to run its $7.9 billion pipelines, they should always beg to consider the rights of the First Nations people. In this case, the proposed pipeline locations are where the waters of Nak’al Koh are situated, which are home to many types of wildlife. The Yinka Dene Alliance is head of the opposition of the project.

What are the concerns?
Essentially, because there is such diverse wildlife, including the endangered Nechako white sturgeon, an oil spill could definitely wreak havoc on the environment, potentially destroying the whole ecosystem. Moreover, because of the Supreme’s Court recent decision granting Tshiqhot’in to 1,750sq km in central BC, there is now increased tension and focus on the rights of aboriginal people. Some people wonder that because of the creation of new jobs due to development of the land, why the First Nations tribes do not agree with this project. The answer, in my opinion, is relatively simple. While development is definitely something that people look forward to as a progression of society, certain types of development hinder and wipe out the natural culture and habitat of areas.
For people like Lillian Sam, the land is precious, and the maintaining of cultural practice can only come via the same lands.

What now?
As legal battles continue on and disputes continue to arise time and time again, one should examine the possible consequences and benefits of such a project (that Enbridge is planning). On one hand, while it will enable provision of oil to many areas of Canada, there are the concerns which were addressed above. One should also take note of the fact that pipelines could destroy the natural scenery and formation of the land, and the disruption of a such a balanced and preserved environment could be costly for the ecology of Canada as a whole. In my opinion, it is important to keep in mind our roots and where we Canadians come from, and that ultimately, we should make a decision about our lands, not business people.

Source: Vancouver Sun

One of the posts on Nodoka’s Blog denoted the problem that supermarket giant Aldi faced – that its frozen beef products contained 30% horse meat. Apparently, the major causes for the failure (according to Nodoka) were the a) failure to track the different suppliers of the beef, and b) nobody knew who to blame once it was found that 30% of the meat was horse meat (the authorities, the different suppliers, Aldi, etc).

This, actually raises the question of the operations of the company – if the company is not sure on the quality of the goods that it is receiving from its suppliers, it probably is a better idea to either change a supplier or establish some ground rules which they should follow. The point is, because the operations segment is so important, the COO should continuously regulate the policies that govern the operations of Aldi in order to ensure no such other scandals ever repeat themselves. Currently, they seem to be doing a good job as no other scandals have been linked to the supermarket chain.

I definitely agree with Nodoka’s point that Aldi should work in the customers; best interest in stocking up on high quality food which doesn’t have to be incredibly expensive. With Aldi having won so many awards over the last few years (), customer loyalty is surely going to prove to be an important part of its business. If another scandal such as the horsemeat arises, it could cost Aldi a lot of revenue, given the different types of supermarkets available all around the world. More importantly, Aldi’s Value proposition of having low prices and high quality food could be put into jeopardy (if it hasn’t already) as a result of such situations, thereby destroying its brand name and potentially ruining the company.

In the future, if other issues like this arise, I would recommend that Aldi attempt to deal with the problem internally and maintain its quality control (which could signal a change in operations for the company) which would ensure the safety and genuine quality of the food it sells to its customers.