Companies who are more successful are the best innovators. But if it were so simple as to just innovate, wouldn’t all companies be on board with this concept of innovation? The reality is that dropping old business models is at times very hard… so hard that it is the cause of monotonous onslaught of the same product, and thus reduced profits and bankruptcy. It is up to the company to manage all the components outlined in the Stakeholder Theory, and to be vigilantly innovative in these categories, for the [almost] ensured success of the business.

As we have witnessed with Dell, its Direct Business model was the most innovative of the time; it set a new precedent. And with that still didn’t stop, it went so far as to pioneer Virtual integration. As it has been seen with an overwhelming number of businesses, Innovation is difficult. The good businesses typically balance things extremely well over the short term (eg. ten years,) but then suddenly and inexplicable profits level off. The Stake Holder theory can often be a good place for Businesses to look when this happens.

• Are Customers needs being satisfied?
• Are suppliers working to improve and innovate products?
• Do employees want to be there?

Ed Freeman put it very succinctly: ”If you just focus on Financiers, you miss what makes capitalism tick.”

Innovation and directed change in one of these categories alone is not enough. Take Apple for example. They are meeting their customers needs by creating a broad array of product sizes; from the small iPod shuffle to the 9″ iPad. They are reaching their customers through many facets, including the online and physical Apple stores, and third party locations such as best buy. A third way Apple has innovated is through its suppliers, who strive to provide them with state of the art components. Everything considered, what has helped Apple achieve success is the undeniable fact that it is relentlessly innovating. Dell on the the other hand failed to continually innovate, and has their modest revenue stream to prove it.

It can be a lot to take in when first considering all of the components to a company, but broken down they provide an excellent canvas to foster innovation. Apple and Dell both innovated well, but Apple took their work rate to the next level, innovating and working hard to set the precedent before other companies in all the fields of Stakeholder Theory. The ability to manage new ideas around the layout of business activities will ultimately determine the success of a business.

It’s about time Syria sorts itself out. We know that, but we don’t really know why that hasn’t happened already. We’re all tired of hearing diluted information that doesn’t quite tell us what is really happening in Syria. Which is why I am going to describe the situation in Syria (something most of us are quite overdue for,) and offer my opinion at the same time.

Since 1971 the Assad family has held power over Syria. Bashar al-Assad being the most recent ruler, failed to offer economic and political reforms for many years until 2011, when the population became, for lack of a better word, ‘fed-up’ with the incompetence of the regime they were held under. So, in a very disorganized attempt to make their voices heard, the civilians of Syria gathered into local tribal groups out of frustration. With no central command, this group of people with relatively mixed agendas grew, and grew… attaining all sorts of diversified people.

Let me point out  that Syria is a place of large religious history. Considering the 87-90% Muslim population of Syria, it is at times difficult for these people to get along with themselves never mind forge a focused alliance on forming a new government. With accusations of atrocities coming from both sides, e.g. the chemical bombings of civilians by the government, and the murdering based on religion.

Long story short, it’s a nasty civil war war with both sides taking cheap shots, and an increasing need for an omnipotent power to come in and set things right (not like in Iraq but a similar thing.) With the religious indoctrination all around, the mixed agendas of the masses, and general chaos and brutality, it is going to take a very deep breath, and a new mindset to overcome the problem Syria is facing.

How interesting it is to understand the misconceptions on what represents true ‘Social Responsibility’ from a Businesses standpoint. One would tend to believe that in order to be Socially Responsible, a Corporation would have to align its intentions to giving back to society. As outlined by Friedman, however, it is very clear that in order to be most efficiently Socially Responsible a company must in fact aim to be more profitable, rather than intentionally Socially Responsible.

Reebok’s standpoint on sweatshops offers an interesting perspective to the matter of ‘Social Responsibility.’ Having employees that worked more than 72 hours/ week in Thailand, they took it upon themselves to terminate business with said supplier because of possible repercussions over the long hours. They allowed a decision based on Social Responsibility to reduce their profits, when having higher profits in the first place is the sole ‘Social Responsibility’ of Corporations. Terminating business with this supplier inevitably: reduced profits, reduced returns for stakeholders, raised prices for customers, and lowered the wages of employees.

The bright side of this decision is that it potentially saved them criticism from the media, and that it may have been ‘Socially Responsible’ of them.

Understanding that the Government taxes corporations, and with this money can support any social cause the people choose, is fundamental to understanding why corporations are not expected to bring about social change. Plus, is it fair for any Corporate Executive to draw from business revenue to support an arbitrary social cause he chooses?

Although Reebok made a sound social decision, It is for the government to decide what Social guideline should be followed, and for the corporations to maximize profits based on the structure the Government provides.