This is in response to Gordon Woo’s blog post which can be found here.

The post discusses how employers should allow their employees room to get creative and innovate instead of performing the same repetitive tasks every single day. The argument states that if this were to be allowed, it would actually raise productivity per employee.

A perfect example of this sort of execution can be found in Google Inc.’s practices. Google allows its employees to devote one day each week to their own personal projects. Google benefits from this because the drive and motivation its employees have towards their own side projects is carried over to the tasks they perform for Google. In addition, this “break” from the usual repetitive tasks allows for the employees to get back to their tasks refreshed. Also, allowing employees this time reinforces the confidence Google has in its employees, more specifically its programmers. Consequently, this reinforcement of confidence motivates the employees further.

Another way Google benefits from this policy is that any completed side projects of its employees is pitched to upper management and could possibly be used by the company. Google has a constant stream of new ideas generated from within the company which has lead to its rapid, constant, and positive growth.

This post is in response to Alyssa Leung’s post You Asked, McDonalds Answered.

For the past decade or so, McDonalds has undergone scrutiny for it’s food preparation process and the ingredients it uses. Images of a “pink slime” was circulated on the Internet and it was associated with being used in McDonalds hamburgers. Controversies like this and documentaries like Super Size Me have given McDonalds have painted McDonalds with a very negative and unhealthy reputation. Personally, I have cut out any McDonalds from my diet, and I haven’t had anything from there for two years now.

However, the company’s “Our Food. Your Questions” campaign provides transparency to its customers and it is a very smart marketing strategy. In addition, it also helps mend the company’s reputation.

Though this is a modern day genius marketing tactic, personally, it does not urge me to eat any McDonalds food again. It is a smart and different campaign, but at the end of the day, once customers like myself have been able to “quit” McDonalds, just because the campaign justifies the ingredients it uses, it does not make fast food any healthier. It still is processed and frozen food. This campaign may recapture some old customers, but most definitely not all.

This post is in response to Melissa Ng’s post on Arising Social Responsibility Mindset of Consumers and Businesses, which can be found here.

Before reading Melissa’s post, I had not heard of the show Dragon’s Den, but I watched the whole episode and was throughly entertained and interested.

(Source)

However, I have to disagree with Melissa and with one of the TV show’s “Dragons”, Arlene Dickson. The future of business will not be centred on being socially responsible or environmentally friendly. At most, it’s a way to differentiate a company, but it won’t be the first priority of the majority of businesses. At the end of the day, most consumers will applaud companies who are eco-friendly and socially responsible, but they will buy the product that will hurt their pockets and wallets least. Unless these consumers have excessive and disposable income.

These are some significant challenges for companies who charge a premium price because of their sustainable and social practices:

• The product itself has to be very unique. Would the product be able to sell itself sans a campaign on its eco-friendliness/social responsibility?
• Can the company afford expensive celebrity endorsements? How else can the product gain so much popularity that it becomes a trend (like Toms Shoes)?

Something else to think about:

A company that is socially and environmentally responsible is able to charge a premium price. But what if a company would make more profits if it wasn’t being socially responsible (and without that premium price), would it still continue to be?

And by pretty face, I mean good ice cream.

Did you know Ben & Jerry’s was also a B Corporation?

Wait, what’s a B Corporation?

A B Corporation (B Corp) or a B Corp certified company meets the “rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency”. In essence, they’re the good guys. B Corps want to redefine success in business; these companies want to dismiss the notion of only-profit-oriented success. (Sound familiar? Corporate social responsibility?)

Here are some screen shots from the B Corporation website:

Ben & Jerry’s has been the exemplar of B Corps. Despite being bought by multinational conglomerate Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s as a subsidiary has continued it’s socially responsible practices.

Some of the outstanding practices of Ben & Jerry’s include:

• Caring Daily program – almost half of the cost of goods sold goes towards investing in small-scale suppliers
• Outsourcing key ingredients from community organizations
• The company’s lowest paid hourly workers make almost 50% above the living wage
• No animal testing

Ben & Jerry’s has the reputation of being a very ethical company, incorporating into their mission statement a social, economic, and product mission.

Sources:
B Corporation Website
Ben & Jerry’s, Poster Child for the B Corp Movement, Becomes a B Corp (by Anne Field)

P.S. Anne Field’s blog on the Forbes website is centred on “NOT ONLY FOR PROFIT” businesses. Check it out here!

During one of the classes on Social Enterprise (Tues Nov 13), the term “Triple Bottom Line” came up and I wasn’t aware of what this meant, so I looked it up.

The triple bottom line consists of three P’s: profit, people, and planet. Examining a company’s “Triple Bottom Line” helps measure and understand the financial (or economic), social, and environmental performance and successes. Doing equally well in all these three aspects means that there is a balance in the priorities of the business. The Triple Bottom Line analysis gained popularity when the population became more aware and concerned with climate change, corporate social responsibility, and fair trade. Businesses couldn’t just be concerned with monetary profits.

[Image source]The People/Social aspect pertains to fair labour practices and fair trade. Being successful in this aspect would mean that your employees are rightfully compensated, are not exploited, have a safe working environment, and have reasonable working hours. In addition, this aspect would also concern the community the business operates in, whether its able to aid in the growth in the community or is able to  contribute to the safety of the community.

The Planet/Environmental aspect evaluates the company’s environmentally sustainable practices like waste management, efficient resource use, recycling and the like. Another important factor to examine under this aspect is the ecological footprint or the carbon footprint of the company.

The Profit/Economic aspect is straightforward and concise, the difference between Revenue and Cost. It also covers strategies on how to lower costs as well as the fiscal growth plan of the company.

A challenge this poses is that there is no concrete or definite way to measure the performance in the People and Planet aspect, whereas the Profit aspect can be calculated in terms of cash.

Sources: http://www.economist.com/node/14301663