In the past, most corporations existed for the sole purpose of making a profit. Fast-forward 20 years and that purpose has changed immensely. With the introduction and the major shift of focus on CSR (corporate social responsibility), now consumers not only “expect businesses to go beyond a “do no harm” philosophy but to also “make a difference”” (Craig Ryan, BDC). CSR is an argument that really interests me and in contrast to my last blog post “J&J’s Failure to Uphold CSR”, Tentree is a strong example of one company that successfully makes a profit while doing more than just upholding CSR.

Kalen Emsley and David Luba, entrepeneurs from Regina, Saskatchewan, created a business that incorporates the incentive of making a serious global impact into trendy lifestyle apparel. For every piece of clothing sold, the company will plant ten trees. Some may argue that this is just a marketing gimmick but Tentree is an environmental advocate that both proudly and openly works with multiple non-profit tree planting organizations. As if we need any more proof that this company is truly dedicated to making a global change, they also only work with manufacturers who use solar panels to generate the energy used to make the clothing.

“Di Fruscia, Patrick. Tentree. 2016. Canada.”

In Janelle Ho’s blog post about Tentree, she makes an impressive thought-provoking statement- “… in reality every tree planted will likely outlive the products initially purchased.” This statement was eye opening because we as consumers sometimes forget that unlike certain fashion trends, sustainability and the ability to make an impact will never go out of style. Janelle also talks about how we should commend the levels of effort Tentree inputs to ensure there are no corners being cut and I could not say it better myself. Following Tentree’s public blog, I have noticed the copious amount of time and effort they put into providing knowledge of the benefits of reforestation. They post every step of their journey and on their official website they even offer an interactive map of who has planted tress and where they were recently planted (a pretty cool feature!). While checking out this map a question did however pop into my head- “how do they decide where to plant these trees?” A click-away I found out that the decision of where to plant trees comes from another partnered non-profit organization that identifies what regions will benefit most from the planting (unbelievable!).

Tentree really does go a step above and beyond with their efforts and this idea of allowing customers to gain more than just a materialistic value from a product is absolutely brilliant. Tentree’s concept not only contributes to one of the world’s major environmental problems but it also raises general awareness to said problems, which is ultimately their mission.

WC: 450

Johnson & Johnson’s baby products have been dominating the market for years and the company has “rightfully” earned the title of “the #1 baby skin care brand”. They pride themselves on the ingredients used in their products and even offer on their website an explanation of the science behind the safety of these ingredients. This raises the question- if these products are marketed as being so safe, then how come Johnson & Johnson has faced around 2,000 lawsuits regarding links between ovarian cancer and their bestselling baby powder?

Peled, Dan. Johnson and Johnson’s Baby Powder. 03 Mar. 2016. N.p.

The most recent case was by a woman named Deborah Giannecchini who filed a suit against the pharmaceutical giant accusing them of “negligent conduct” in both making and marketing its baby powder. She was originally diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012 and believed that the reason was to be her daily use of the talcum powder. Although Johnson & Johnson declared their product to be completely harmless, Deborah ended up winning the suit and received a 70 million dollar award. Earlier this year there were two other similar lawsuits against the company that resulted in 127 million dollars worth of rewards. In an article in the global news, Jim Onder, an attorney for the plaintiff said, “We are pleased the jury did the right thing. They once again reaffirmed the need for Johnson & Johnson to warn the public of the ovarian cancer risk associated with its product.” Clearly the company is not upholding their corporate social responsibility and is failing to warn consumers of the health risks.

The problem with the company is that they are wrongfully marketing their baby powder to be as safe as can be. They are failing to admit that talcum powder can increase chances of ovarian cancer in women and therefore are not providing any type of warning. This has had a huge effect on the public and even someone like me, who generally enjoys the multi-purpose powder, will refuse to engage in business with them anymore. Ovarian cancer is not a risk I would like to take. Unless Johnson & Johnson starts to change their marketing techniques and perhaps packaging, I believe their brand name will suffer hugely.

The thing with these “giant” companies is that they seem to think they can get away with corporate social responsibility. Besides Johnson & Johnson, another example would be in Baiquan Wang’s blog “See Walmart’s CSR In Its Garbage”. In it, she talks about how Walmart was caught discarding food well before their best-before date and the corporation just dismissed the public concerns. Failure to admit these wrong-doings and ignoring concerns is neither ethical or responsible. Without a strong corporate social responsibility, companies will not have long-term success.

WC 439

After two years of Amazon’s “Echo” succeeding as one of the only “smart-speakers” on the market, Google has decided to create direct competition with its newest product “Google Home”. Similar to the Echo, Google Home is a stationary, always-listening digital assistant that has a planned release date of October 4^th, 2016. Google Home will contain all the same standard features of the Echo (voice command, music streaming, personal assistance- add items to calendar, turn off lights, check flight status, etc.); however, it will additionally include a customizable appearance as well as a rumoured cheaper selling price. This product will also be complete with Google’s new “Google Assistant”, which is said to have unbelievable conversational qualities when compared to the Echo.

When it comes to entering a market with such direct competition, Google had to find a way to make their product stand out and differentiate from the already existing products. Besides adding plenty of unique attributes (such as the design and software), one of the more notable strategies that the multinational technology company used was one of “Porter’s Generic Strategies”- cost leadership. Porter explains part of this strategy as “the firm sells its products at either average or below average industry prices to gain market share”. The Echo currently sells for $180 and the Google Home is rumoured to sell in between $130-$140, which should prove to be attractive for buyers. By selling this product at a lower price, it should allow Google to enter the market with ease and then possibly raise the prices later on if they choose to add more features/updates or whatnot. Google already has made a very reputable name for its company; however, they need to focus on creating that exact reputation for this individual product. For this to happen, there has to first be potential buyers and what better way to initially get them than to have the cheapest product in the market.

Although the Google Home is going for a cheaper selling price, there is a good chance the company won’t sacrifice the quality of the product because that is not within their business ethics. Google has created plenty of anticipation for this product and it will be interesting to ultimately see if Porter’s suggested strategy works and if the Google Home really does surpass the Amazon Echo.

Displayed beside its “wake-up” phrase, the design of the Google Home is shown.

Morris, Paul. Google Home. 19 May 2016. Web.

WC: 382

Many of us have been lectured about “doing the right thing” or even more unsettling, “doing what YOU think is right”. Usually the moment these phrases leave your interlocutor’s mouth, panic and utter fear set in as you begin to really ask yourself, “what exactly .. is right?”. During this short time of thought, which may seem like hours to some, your mind races to make a decision based on your ethical beliefs. Ethics-synonymous to morals and/or values- differentiate our rights from wrongs and they shape the way we, as humans, behave. Each and every one of us holds oneself to our own ethical/moral code but what exactly happens in a group setting such as a business or organization? As Wes Harrison, research analyst, mentioned in one of his articles, “If people as individuals are to be held to an ethical, or moral code, so too should corporations in the manner with which they operate and conduct business”.

Business ethics is relatively self-explanatory; it has to do with corporate responsibilities and the moral principles found in a business environment. As much as we, as people and consumers, hate it many business and organizations are dishonest and lack these so-called moral principles. One specific organization that I, as well as many others, follow religiously was recently caught in a scandal that is not only unethical but it has raised almost as many eyebrows as it has questions. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association, or better known to some as “FIFA”, is the international governing body of the largest (as well as the best) sport in the world- football/soccer. Now do not get me wrong, FIFA has an extremely strong ethics committee that has never stopped short of indicting several top executives; however, the amount of corruption and scandals this organization faces will never subside.

One specific accusation that I would like to direct attention to is about the wrongful bidding process that awarded the Gulf state of Qatar the 2022 World Cup. As an article from bbc suggests, “how in the world did such a small country like Qatar gain such an event that generates billions of dollars in revenue from corporate sponsors, broadcasting rights and merchandising.” The obvious and most corrupt answer that most have come to is bribery. With FIFA previously facing charges of racketeering, conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering, who’s to say that the tiny peninsula with the highest per-capita GDP in the world did not pay off committee members? Bribery is extremely dishonourable and although FIFA claims that accepting bribes was embedded in their culture from the two previous presidents, this unethical act has already had a huge impact on Fifa’s reputation.

Sepp Blatter ends 17-year reign as FIFA’s president after being banned by ethic’s                                           committee for his improper behaviour.

Leanza, Ennio. Sepp Blatter. 30 May 2015. 20 Minutes. 31 May 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

WC: 437