Ben and Jerry’s ice cream company has long been an active participant in the political sphere, and has once again stepped into the spotlight, as shown in a recent Global News article. Ben and Jerry’s has now begun sourcing non-GMO ingredients to show its commitment to the non-GMO movement and a customer’s right to a high-quality, natural product.

Ben and Jerry’s choice to change their method of sourcing ingredients, as well as their outspoken nature in the non-GMO movement, truly reveals their ethics and overall values as a company. This has not only affected their customer relationship, but now their value proposition as well. Customer’s can now see how Ben and Jerry’s political views play into the improvement of their overall product. This ultimately creates positive recognition for the company, and could lead to a greater appreciation for the importance of non-GMO products. Though the impact of such ingredients is not fully understood, Ben and Jerry’s has shown that the shift away from such products simply means a more locally-sourced, natural result. This recent change has also given way to other GMO labeling measures that give Ben and Jerry’s the opportunity to expand its ideas and enlighten the rest of the country about its all-natural, delectable ice cream.

The recent article in the Vancouver Sun regarding the land conflict between First Nations and Taseko Mines Ltd. clearly illustrates the impact that social, political, and environmental factors can have on a company. Social and environmental issues have come into the spotlight even more in recent times and have consequently played more of a role in the many restrictions that business’ have come to face. Due to the increasing influence of these factors in society, the government has reacted to accommodate the interests of groups like First Nations. Thus, First Nations has come to hold more power over companies like Taseko that threaten their cultural values as well as the precious ecosystem of the area. The Canadian government has declared its commitment to abiding by the interests of First Nations people and has thus placed political limitations on companies that do not stand by their principles. Though Taseko claims to have presented a comprehensive business strategy in order to avoid such social and environmental conflicts, the risks their activities pose to the values held by the aboriginal community prove to be too dangerous. Consequently, Taseko has not just had to adjust its business model to suit such external factors, but shift the location and strategy of operations entirely.

Experimentation is an integral part of a business’ success, as described in Maxwell Wessel’s Harvard Business Review blog. However, the idea that consensus is not important in companies looking to test the market is not entirely accurate. Innovative companies do need to innovate constantly to remain current, but they need not lose the total integration of the business.

Wessel examines the fact that the time spent circulating ideas around is costly. Although this is true, many failed experiments also accumulate to produce a large cost. In order for a business to have a clear idea of its goals and its own identity, there must be an overall consensus among the different departments and individuals involved with its success.

Wessel also encourages businesses to not punish failure, but punish waste. However, tests that fail due to a lack of consensus within a business also seem like a waste of resources. Choosing to simply launch an experiment without indulging the ideas of those invested in the company’s interests and knowledgeable about its place in the market, is a complete waste of company intelligence. Consensus and the power of combined experience is one of the greatest assets a business has, and choosing to toss that aside in the interest of experimentation puts overall success at risk.