It is no surprise that scamming numbers have risen since the Internet was introduced to the world. Cyberspace has since then become the simplest mean of scamming, where many unfortunate victims essentially have their money stolen right out of their pockets. Paul Carr of Pando Blogs focuses on the scamming that occurs particularly in the tech industry. He explains, on a more general note, that the main reason for increased scamming over time is simply due the rise of egotism in the business world. Other contributing factors include the fact that due to the prevalence of scamming today, more companies are willing to commit the fraudulent act in order to squeeze out a little extra revenue out of customers.

Obviously there is no questioning the ethics behind scamming, it is wrong, no matter what the context. I completely agree with Carr in his analysis of increased scamming in the tech industry. The rise in scamming symbolizes corruption and reflects on the ethics of the business world as a whole. I also believe that it is foreshadowing the future of business. A change needs to happen in order to prevent future scamming, protect potential future victims of scams, and most importantly, preserve business ethics. Whether this change will happen soon enough, or on a large enough scale to be effective, nobody can be sure. We can only hope that honourable business ethics can conquer scamming, self-seeking stakeholders, in order for justice to prevail.

References: https://pando.com/2015/11/17/something-scammy-way-comes/

Processed meats have always been viewed as unhealthy. The debate regarding how unhealthy it actually is left the answer in a very grey area, until recently. As David Lee explains on his blog, “a recent report from the World Health Organization has classified processed and red meats as carcinogens.” The reason it has been deemed “carcinogenic to humans” is due to the fact that it has been linked to causing cancer in those who consume the processed meat; it has been placed in the same group as tobacco. This is very bad news for restaurants that use processed beef and red meat, and especially for those people who have consumed large quantities of the delicious carcinogens.

So people shouldn’t eat processed beef. Seems simple enough. Unfortunately, not even the natural beef industry can be trusted. An outbreak of E Coli linked to beef in North America has been reported, widely known to have caused Chipotle to shut down 43 locations in its chain temporarily. This was as a result of multiple cases of E Coli poisoning being linked to the meat Chipotle was serving. As agreed to by both David Lee and Jamie Boyle, people will most likely continue to buy processed beef and red meat, despite the health implications made by the WHO. Although the retail of the processed meat has not been altered or restricted, the foundation has been set to cease its production in the future.

References: https://blogs.ubc.ca/dlee/, http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cancer-meat-red-processed-iarc-1.3293541, https://www.rt.com/usa/320573-chipotle-food-poisoning-e-coli/

For those who are unaware, Ashley Madison is a website on the Internet famously known for openly encouraging the immoral act of having an affair. The website matches users, who then proceed to carrying out the affair if they please. Although more people are having affairs now than ever before, the act is still incredibly unethical and should not be pursued. Nonetheless, Ashley Madison has taken the increased popularity of the act and made a business out of it.

Yes, that’s right, you read it correctly. Guaranteed Affairs! No matter what you look like!

From a personal perspective, seeing a sign like this would be quite appalling. This is Ashley Madison’s slogan: “Life is short. Have an affair.” Why should a company with this kind of value proposition be allowed to operate? So much pain can be inflicted as a result of affairs; it can ruin relationships and tear apart families. Although it is not illegal, it is extremely inhumane and unprincipled, and should definitely be publicly boycotted or opposed in some way.

In July, earlier this year, a group of hackers managed to hack into Ashley Madison’s website and leaked many names of customers of the company, causing a wave of controversy of ethics. Although hacking into a company’s website to retrieve information is illegal, some people believe it was done with good intentions of revealing the truth to victims of the affairs. Tanner Davies elaborates on the ethics regarding the hacking of Ashley Madison in his blog post, questioning whether the hacking and releasing of this information was illegal. Since there are so many angles that a situation can be viewed from, Tanner believes that it may have been for the greater good of society. I personally agree with Tanner, especially after learning about business ethics in COMM 101. The hackers created a Robin Hood-like scenario, where they stole (information) from the the immoral people having affairs (the rich) and revealed it to the public (the poor).

References: https://blogs.ubc.ca/tannerdavies/, http://www.thestar.com/news/privacy-blog/2015/11/ashley-madison-customers-complain-of-blackmail-after-hack.html

Most recently in the world of self-driving cars, Google has begun testing its prototype cars in Texas after having trouble being able to do so in California due to issues with regulation. Moreover, Tesla has automatically updated its ‘Model S’ cars, introducing an “autopilot” system that aims to increase safety on the road. Tesla explains the concept on its website:

“Tesla Autopilot relieves drivers of the most tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel. We’re building Autopilot to give you more confidence behind the wheel, increase your safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable… Tesla Autopilot functions like the systems that airplane pilots use when conditions are clear.”

A concern regarding Tesla’s autopilot development is that the cars were automatically updated remotely overnight, in the same way an iPhone is updated. Not enough is known about this to be sure about the reliability of the update, however no malfunctions or issues with the autopilot update have been reported. At the end of the day, if safety is in the value propositions of companies manufacturing autonomous vehicles, they must provide it.

An idealist point of view will show optimism towards safer roads and a feasible solution to impaired driving, while a realist perspective will question the reliability of autonomous cars to prevent accidents. A grand total of 11 car accidents have involved google cars, however the records claim that the accidents were not at the fault of the google cars. All of the accidents occurred with conventional vehicles. Although the statistics gathered by Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak of the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan show higher crash and injury rates in autonomous vehicle prototypes over conventional vehicles, the injuries sustained in the crashes were minor. Furthermore, the self-driving google car is still being developed and having its creases ironed out in order to become a reliable, consistent, safety-guaranteeing vehicle.

References: Google Self-Driving Cars Hope for Faster Lane to Approval in Texas, Self-Driving Cars More Prone to Accidents, But It’s Not Their Fault, Your Autopilot has Arrived

Jeff McMahon of Forbes Magazine believes that in the coming future, the technology renewable energy paired with battery storage on a mass scale will make power plants obsolete. He is not the only one who believes so; his opinion is backed by Elon Musk of Tesla Motors and Jim Robo of NextEra Energy, both of whom predict that within the next decade the need for power plants can be overtaken by the “holy grail,” as Robo calls it. Robo spoke to an analyst at a recent conference, predicting that America after 2020 will probably “just be building energy storage instead [of power plants].” If this is what the future holds for the energy industry, a revolution is just over the horizon.

The strongest point of difference that comes along with storing energy from a renewable energy source is a world-changing social benefit: energy will finally  become a clean industry, as it has been envisioned for decades. Thanks to social entrepreneurs who look to preserve the environment of the Earth, this day is imminent. The main reason it will take so long to implement is converting areas of the world (most likely beginning in America) from the power plant based energy system being used now into a mass storage of energy sourced from renewable energy. Global warming is a pressing threat to international security, therefore this is a huge social entrepreneurship opportunity for all stakeholders involved. The only thing standing in the way of this breakthrough in the energy industry is the regulation process. Once sorted out, a new era of energy could be upon us.

References: “Solar + Storage May Be Energy’s Holy Grail, But Will Regulators Aid The Quest?”

Both Toms and Sole Rebels are socially entrepreneurial organization. Toms is a company that runs on a one-for-one business model; it donates a pair of shoes to people in need across 5 continents. On the other hand there is Sole Rebels, which provides opportunity for people in Ethiopia, to work and make a living by crafting shoes out of natural resources. While these are both initiatives are working for exceptional causes that should be supported, the focus strategy of Sole Rebels should ultimately result in a positive change in an entire community in Ethiopia, and potentially its economy, all while producing with natural “vegan” materials. However, a one-for-one business model is not ineffective. This does not go to say – in any shape or form – that what Toms is doing is not worthy of recognition.

I agree with and support the ‘one-for-one’ business model because if executed properly, impacts multiple communities in a positive way. Toms not only benefits the economy in which its company is based (like any other successful business), it also benefits and improves the conditions of the everyday lives of individuals in need around the world. The most important part of a one-for-one business model is of course the ethics behind the idea. It is imperative to question WHY a company is decided to involve itself in this way, and what a company’s intentions are; otherwise, a company can simply begin an initiative that seems socially responsible at first, but in reality it could be the company looking to further its own brand reputation and increase its profits by adding to its value proposition. However, despite the fact that the intent behind a one-for-one business model can be for the wrong reasons, it still fulfils the initiative of giving back to make the world a better place.

References: TOMS, Sole Rebels

According to Matt Egan, a writer for CNNMoney’s market and investigating team, “it’s shaping up to be the crummiest year for U.S. stocks since the implosion of Lehman Brothers.” As unfortunate as it is, it’s hard to disagree after looking at the factors involved in Egan’s (and many others’) claims. The biggest of these factors is China’s economy taking a recent dip. Wall Street should be very concerned about this, as China’s problems may end up plaguing the global economy, not just America. As explained by an article in the Wall Street Journal, “there is too much debt, too many factories and too many vacant apartments.” China’s depleted economy has caused the American stock market to take a dip as well; and a large foreshadow of decreasing numbers is looming on the horizon for Wall Street.

As we know, the magnitude of China’s influence is far greater than just Wall Street. The American economy, as well as Canada’s, both rely heavily on the success of the world’s second largest economic superpower (only behind America). A constant domino effect is occurring between China and the countries involved in its affairs. When China is in economic surplus, it radiates onto the global economy; however the same thing occurs for the opposite. As China sinks in its woes, so does everyone being carried by China’s economy.

China’s current economy suffers from many open wounds, one being that its output of goods has declined drastically. “You can see this in a sharp contraction in shipping through Singapore, a general decline in the volume of world trade, and the falling price of the Australian dollar, all of which are ripple effects of China importing fewer raw materials and seemingly exporting fewer finished goods,” explains Matthew Yglesias, executive editor at Vox. On top of that, China is in a great deal of debt, resulting in a longer recovery time for its impaired economy. It is in America’s and the rest of the world’s best hopes that the Chinese economy is able to bounce back as fast as possible, in order to escape an economic depression.

References

Brace for Worst Year on Wall Street Since 2008

China’s Middle-Class Dreams in Peril

China’s economic slowdown: 11 things you should know

The still-recent breakthrough of genetic engineering has opened up an entirely new spectrum of opportunities for mankind, as well as ethics. What parts of the genetic structure should be allowed to be altered? And how much can they be altered before it becomes unethical? Genetic engineering carries the potential to rid the genetic structure of congenital disease in developing babies, and even prevent the risk of certain diseases after birth altogether. On another note It can also allow future parents to genetically “design” their baby to look and grow however they desire. This idea on its own raises a lot of ethical controversy, and could change the game of baby-making entirely.

The Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) is putting these questions to the test, however, not with humans. An article was published on IFLScience on October 1, 2015, titled, “Scientists Have Genetically Engineered Micropigs To Sell As Pets.” As explained by author Kristy Hamilton, the BGI initially began genetically engineering and breeding what they call “micropigs” for the purpose of conducting medical research. Pigs seem to share similar biology to humans in organ and tissue composition, and by breeding smaller pigs, BGI is able to be more efficient with their resources. “According to BGI, these little pigs have already proved helpful in studies concerning stem cells and gut microbiota. Smaller pigs are also more manageable test subjects, as they require less lab space, drug doses and upkeep costs” (Hamilton).

Animal testing is a completely separate issue in itself, one far larger than genetic mutation of animals is in the current day. The ethics of genetically engineering these pigs are questionable. Although BGI claims that the pigs suffer no health detriments from the mutation of their size, nobody can be too sure quite yet. On the other hand, many people see this form of breeding to be on the same level as breeding say, dogs or cats for their personality traits.

What we do know is, the truth of the matter is simple; the science of genetic mutation is still too new of a concept to the world for people to have undoubted faith in. Regardless, it will be no surprise that many people will purchase micropigs as pets. And it’s not hard to see why. I mean, look at them.

(Link to References in the Article Above)

The European Union has taken the initiative in forming an on-road automobile pollution testing policy, rather than only testing in labs. Author Danny Hakim explains in his article, “under the new plan, cars in Europe would for the first time be tested on the road, using portable monitoring equipment, in addition to laboratory testing.” The recent announcement has caused many notable automobile companies such as Volkswagen, BMW, and Toyota (and more) to beg for leniency in testing if the results reveal higher emissions than previously tested. This is due to the fact that many of these large automobile conglomerates have been cheating the tests by using technology that alters the result of the tests in their favour.

Hakim quotes later in the article, “suspicions about Volkswagen began when an outside testing firm did its own road tests on the company’s cars, using portable equipment. Emissions from Volkswagen cars were found to be as much as 40 times higher than what is allowed under the Clean Air Act in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has said.” It is believed that various other automobile companies also use methods that alter the test results of nitrogen oxides produced by their vehicles. Volkswagen, in particular, is being pointed at, as it is the largest car company in the world. It was found that roughly 11 million of their vehicles use nitrogen oxide traps, which essentially capture nitrogen oxides in the system’s chamber, resulting in decreased emission numbers. The following graphic highlights the nitrogen oxide trap – along with the car’s computer – in orange.

Because the policy was only recently proposed and has only been used by a private organization. However, after hearing about Europe’s new testing policy idea, automakers have requested that if the policy falls through, that Europe allows “a 70 percent increase in the nitrogen oxides their cars emit.” This is because it is not just large car companies that can’t keep under the emissions limit; more astoundingly, it is the entire auto industry that faces this problem as a whole. In fact, automakers have found ways to cheat emissions tests since they were first regulated in the early 70s. The truth can be frightening; in this case, it is the willingness to sacrifice the global environment for an edge over competition and a gain in profits that is so astonishing. But now the entire auto industry has been caught red handed.

In realization of the magnitude of this issue, “European policy makers had proposed allowing for a 30 percent increase in nitrogen oxide emissions as a cushion, in their own acknowledgment that the new tests would be more demanding,” (Hakim). Of course, they cannot enforce the current regulations, as most cars would not be allowed to operate on the road given the current standards. Although permitting lee weigh in auto emissions testing, the results will – for the first time in nearly half a century – be accurate. The first world should be tipping its hat off to Europe in acknowledgment of its efforts to help preserve the environment, and follow in its footsteps.

References

Main Article: Automakers Ask Europe for Leniency in Emissions Testing

Supporting Articles: Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency, How Volkswagen Got Away With Diesel Deception,

“Is It Ethical for Coke to Sponsor Conflicted Research on Weight Loss?” This article is written by Dana Radcliffe and was published in late August of 2015 in the business section of the Huffington Post. It discussed the US$1.5 million of funding The Coca-Cola Company had given to enable the launching of an organization known as the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN). The GEBN is a non-profit organization which articulates in its mission statement, is “dedicated to identifying and implementing innovative solutions to prevent and reduce diseases associated with inactivity, poor nutrition and obesity.” One should be immediately asking themselves: why would Coke sponsor a weight loss promoting organization?

Despite this article striking as a bit odd, it absolutely reeks with hypocrisy. However, the true issue of this article lies in its ethics. A second time, one should wonder why Coke would poke its nose in the business of weight loss? First off, the consumption of sugar-filled beverages (like Coke) is one of the top leading factors of obesity in the United States. Second, Coke is not just any big soda company; it is in fact the single largest soda conglomerate worldwide, valuing in at just over US$70 billion, the next runner up being Diet Coke at a comparatively puny US$13.8 billion. If Coke was truly interested in promoting weight loss, the first step it should be taking is changing the recipe of its infamous beverage.

Aside from singlehandedly being one of the largest contributors to American obesity, a professor at New York University by the name of Marion Nestle claims that the GEBN is “nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola.” She went on to accuse Coke of funding the GEBN in order to “get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect attention from dietary intake.” If this is truly the case, this situation – quite ironically – displays immense immorality and could only lead to further proving how much damage Coke is inflicting on its more-than-frequent consumers.

Main Article: Is It Ethical for Coke to Sponsor Conflicted Research on Weight Loss?

Supporting articles: About GEBN , American Soda Brand Value Rankings , Contributing Factors to American Obesity