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

I really enjoyed the class on Social Entrepreneurship. This type of business was not new to me because I had attended a talk held by the Social Enterprise Club a few weeks earlier where Comm 101 Prof. Jeff Kroeker was one of the speakers. Before attending the workshop Social Enterprise (SE) 101, I had no idea what Social Enterprise was. However, because of the workshop and the Comm. class on SE, I am now able to verbalize and articulate why I decided to go into Business.

Also in attendance at the SE 101 Workshop was Mark Brand. His name came up during the class as well. He restored Save on Meats, which was an institution in the Downtown Eastside community. During his talk, his passion for the community genuinely came through. Mark gave specific examples of the social aspects of his business. For one, his main priority is always his employees. He stressed that the environment he tries to foster in the workplace is not only a professional one, but a familial one as well. With employees who are recovering drug addicts or previously homeless, Mark says it is always important to just take a moment to ask how everyone is doing and to make sure everyone is in a safe, healthy place in their lives.

Another program they do at Save on Meats is food catering. Once a week, Save on Meats and partnered hotels provide meals to the homeless and to those who don’t have the means to feed themselves.

If Social Enterprise is covered again in class, I think it would be awesome if Jeff could share some of his anecdotes from his experiences in Africa. It would really give us students an even better grasp on what Social Enterprise really is.

Additional reading:
Mark Brand’s Speaker Profile
Mark Brand: Building a Downtown Eastside Foodie Empire

This post is in response to Yuwei Wei’s blog regarding Employee Motivation which can be found here.

Yuwei makes the point that an indication of a company’s strength is how invested its employees are in its success. She stresses that a company should invest in the well-being and growth of its employees. Consequently, if the workers are satisfied and happy, the company as a whole reap the benefits as well. Yuwei makes her point by using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

I completely agree with her views on employee satisfaction: High employee satisfaction leads to higher productivity in the workplace, and in turn, contributes to greater corporate success.

Google Inc. is a company that excels far and beyond others when it comes to employee benefits and employee satisfaction. To begin with, Google typically pays its employees 12% above the rest of the market with salaries ranging between $63,023 and $147,881 [1]. The company also provides multiple conveniences to its employees like free meals, in-house medical services, haircut services, professional massage services, gym and swimming pool services, and even child day care [2]. With these services available to employees, they do not need to leave the workplace to run errands, which is a benefit to the company as well.

Google offers free meals to its employees.In addition to a pleasant work environment, if an employee passes, his/her spouse will be paid 50% of their salary for the next decade. In addition, any children will receive $1000 per month until they turn 19 (or 23 if they’re studying full-time) [3].

Google is one of the front runners when it comes to the security and well-being of its employees. The company’s genuine interest and care for its employees is a significant factor in its success. With employees being happy and satisfied, they are also more productive. In regards to the Stakeholder Theory, Google strongly satisfies the employee stakeholder, and with its current successes, I can infer that it isn’t doing a bad job satisfying all its other stakeholders as well.

Sources:
[1] http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Google,_Inc./Salary
[2] http://computer.howstuffworks.com/googleplex3.htm
[3] http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/google-employee-benefits-continue-after-death-50008875/

This is in response to Aaron Cho’s blog post which can be found here

Aaron’s blog post talked about how billion-dollar companies such as Samsung and Apple are participating in questionable labour practices. I completely agree with his position on this issue. As Samsung and Apple continue to outsource to China and other countries, they have no regard for their highly unethical labour practices. Underpaying and exploiting vulnerable employees is unacceptable.

According to Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory (video below), if any business wishes to succeed, it must satisfy different stakeholders – its customers, suppliers, financiers, the community and also its employees. However, the aforementioned companies are clearly neglecting the interests and well-being of its employees. In addition, according to Freeman, the interests of the stakeholders are inter-linked and one cannot be neglected while some are not. Sooner than later, the other stakeholders of Apple and Samsung will experience the ramifications of its neglect for their employees.

Though one’s ethics should not take control of his/her business, ethics do help establish a good, long-term reputation.

Another NHL Lockout is probable in the near future. How long it will last this time around, we don’t know. The NHL Players Association and the League yet again do not see eye to eye on the renewal of the players’ contract.

The players are currently entitled to 57% of revenue, and the remaining 43% goes to the owners. However, now the owners are fighting for 53%.

At the conclusion of the 2004-2005 NHL Lockout, where there was no hockey for an entire season, the NHL (ownership) got their way while players took a 24% pay cut and agreed to the salary cap.

Yet again, the NHL wants the players to take a pay cut, among other things. The ethical issue behind this concern is that the contract and the terms that were agreed upon in 2005 were in favour of the NHL, not the NHLPA. It was a contract the NHL was happy with, rather than one they just settled for. And now, they are the ones unhappy and pushing for another revision.

These billionaire owners should make more of an effort to meet the demands of the NHLPA because they don’t seem to realize that without these players, there is no hockey to profit from.

Articles:
NHL lockout: League makes a ‘meaningful’ offer, take it or leave it
NHL lockout: Labour expert says signs on talks are ‘not good’