On November 13, GM announced that in the second quarter of next year it will move international headquarters from Shanghai to Singapore, a trophy for the subtropical city-state that is aggressively promoting itself as a global business centre.

GM set up a division for international operations in Shanghai, but a recent reshuffle split GM China from the international unit, which is seeking a new start.

Why did GM make this decision?

“Singapore would offer closer proximity to our key markets,” said Lori Arpin, spokeswoman for GM’s international operations.

However, what GM said maybe not important. The truth is that because China is a very important market, but China is not the international market. China has its own special rules. According to the present stage, Singapore is one of the international trade, financial and shipping centre.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/gm-move-intl-office-shanghai-singapore-20872888

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/gm-to-move-international-headquarters-from-shanghai-to-singapore-1.1541002#ixzz2kzVLbwFk

Canadian companies are on a U.S. property buying spree. Canada is  easily outpacing every other country in what is called net real estate investment in  U.S. commercial property,  even ahead of a combined Europe.

Canadians have bought about US$27-billion more in property in the U.S. than Americans have purchased here over the past four years, has been a unique set of market conditions.

Why?

The major reason is that the United States, with its diversity and growth and with more like 11 or 12 times Canadian market size and its proximity, along with the same language and similar laws, makes it more akin to a domestic market than going further afield for purchases. Canada’s dominance is impressive.

According to a report from Deloitte & Touche, the number of international travellers to Canada has declined 20 per cent since 2000. Canada was one of the most popular international tourist destinations in 1970, second only to Italy. Now it’s No. 18, and behind countries like Ukraine and Saudi Arabia.

Why should we care about this?

It’s clear that strengthening tourism would have a positive impact on Canadian companies and our overall economy. What’s more, an increase in travellers to Canada could encourage Canadian companies to enter new markets internationally and experience greater competitive intensity, which we know results in periods of high productivity growth positively impacting the economy.

I believe that government should carry out some measurements such as structural reforms to the air travel sector to reduce high base fare and reform the process for issuing visas to reduce wait times and uncertainty. Furthermore, tourism organizations also need to be more innovative in reaching out to the new demographic who are travelling, and providing a product that will appeal to them.

Everyone’s first impression of the 14-inch Razer Blade, even more than its 17-inch older brother, is Ha, they made a MacBook. But then, Oh—wait. They made a MacBook. And actually, it’s even better than that.

The Razer Blade is a 14-inch gaming laptop that’s small and light enough to be your everyday machine and the Razer Blade Pro is a 17-inch all-in-one mobile workstation. The Razer Blade is even thinner than a dime and only 2.8kg, also the Razer Blade Pro is incredibly powerful and amazingly portable.

Razer want to design a powerful laptop without compromising on its portability. Now they achieve it!

However, the major obstacle that Razer facing now is the price. The Razer Blade starts at $1,799 and the Razer Blade Pro starts at $2,299 which are expensive for most of customers, comparing to Macbook pro which starts at $1299 for 13-inch and Alienware which starts at $1099 for 14-inch. Razer should focus on how to reduce their cost in next generation of their products.

In general, the Razer Blade is an incredible product and I believe that if the price can be attractive in the future, it will sweep the market of high-end mobile PCs.

The Body Shop forged a reputation as a responsible business long before it became fashionable. They were one of the first companies to publish a full report on their corporate social responsibility (CSR ) initiatives thanks to founder Anita Roddick’s passionate beliefs of environmental protection, animal rights, community trade and human rights. The company has gone so far as to start The Body Shop Foundation, which supports fellow pioneers who would normally struggle to get funding.

Over 20 years ago the company set up a fair trade programme, well before the term ‘Fair Trade’ started to become popular on supermarket shelves. Of course, The Body Shop is famous for its anti-animal testing stance. Whilst this makes testing their products more difficult, especially in markets such as the USA and Japan, their position has created a loyal customer base. In my opinion this is a valuable idea. From opening her first store in 1976, 30 years later Annit Roddick’s empire was taken over by L’Oreal for £652m, where it has continued to make annual profits of over £40m.

No longer is the term ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ a novel idea amongst businesses.