“Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.” – Bill Drayton

Although the United Nations fights for justice by defending basic human rights through peacekeeping efforts and international law, their actions will only prevail for a short period of time. Due to the limited amount of resources in the world, the UN can only supply as much humanitarian aid as they possess. On the contrary, social enterprise strives for a long-term, impactful, and lasting influence for impoverished communities. Unlike the UN, their aid is not so much physical, but mental and spiritual, such as education, social, or technological change.

The Arc Initiative, provides “long-term economic betterment for local communities,” empowering local artisans with the business and leadership skills necessary to promote their company. Arc’s business training program supported firms, such as Salem’s Ethiopia and Shega Shero Eatery, who gained useful and practical advice that proved to benefit their businesses greatly. As a result, these local businesses have become self-sustaining.

Education is always the last priority in a world of incessant human rights violations, and even with adequate funds, the UN has only enough manpower to provide basic elementary schooling. Therefore, these communities would never have been able to attain this level of self-sufficiency from the UN.

When you mention the word “smartphone” in China, the first thing people will think of is Xiaomi. Founded only four short years ago, this young smartphone manufacturing company is already dominating the Chinese market. Vazquez Sampere from the Harvard Business Review even calls Xiaomi a disruptive innovator; although it has faced uninhibited success, it retails to a smaller target market than competitors (customer segment is primarily adolescents) and has lower gross margins (Xiaomi’s prices are 60% less than Apple’s).

However, I must disagree with Sampere. I do not think Xiaomi can be labeled a “disruptive innovator” considering the integrity of its accomplishments. One could dub Xiaomi the “Apple of the East,” in light of the striking similarities between their design, interface, operating systems (iOS vs. MIUI), and even marketing strategy, according to the New York Times.

It is not reasonable to name Xiaomi a disruptive innovator when it is merely mimicking Apple. This would be like calling designer knockoffs, disruptive innovators, when they are nothing but a phony and more affordable version of the brand. It seems hardly fair to give copycat companies credit for such rapid success.  Therefore, the precedent should concur for Xiaomi. Instead of calculating their current company value, this Apple knockoff brand should be sustaining copyright charges.

Meet Ryan Grepper, the founder of The Coolest, a project that originated on a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign. The Coolest is no normal cooler, as this “portable party” comes installed with a built-in blender, speakers, phone charger, and other fancy accessories. Grepper launched his campaign just four months ago, and since then, it has raised over 13 million dollars, breaking the record for the greatest amount raised on Kickstarter.

However, the impressive part is that The Coolest wasn’t successful the first time around. According to Entrepreneur, it had missed the $125,000 target in their 2012 campaign. Stories like these are typical of entrepreneurship. It is difficult to tell whether a startup will be well accepted by the market, and more often than not, it will be met by failure.

I think Grepper did a brilliant job overcoming failure. Instead of letting “game over” defeat him, his strong work ethic and ambitiousness propelled him to focus all his energy on The Coolest and develop an even better prototype (features like the phone charger weren’t in the first model). Grepper is a natural entrepreneur and is now remembered as one of the few successful solo-founder startups. His passion for the company coupled gave him the determination to turn a nifty homemade gadget into a million-dollar enterprise.

“Hire slow, fire fast” is the newest mantra in business today. Like Carlene Loughlin discusses in her post, selective hiring processes enlist only the “best of the best,” and brisk firing practices ensure a dynamic and constantly productive workplace.

Although hiring slowly and firing fast may a popular trend, it may not be the ideal course of action for all businesses. The most obvious case in point is startups, many of which have a very short life span, and hiring slowly would fatally mar the company’s performance rather than improve it. Instead, startups should follow its own specific hiring formula: “hire fast, fire fast” (as suggested by Mark Suster on TechCrunch).

Personally, I would prefer hiring fast and firing fast for all businesses, not only startups. No matter how furiously selective a hiring process can be, the firm will never truly determine an applicant’s job performance and effectiveness until they begin working for the company. However, this does not mean the firm should hire everyone who applies; there should always be a scrupulous screening process to dismiss those who are unqualified. The point is that employers should be more open-minded while recruiting. It is more practical to test the suitability of a few potential applicants, than reject many promising candidates under the pressure to find the perfect fit.

The Tokyo Marathon is a day for runners to showcase months of hard work, preparation and training, but it is also a day for Dole to showcase their banana as Japan’s #1 banana.

The “Gokusen” is Dole’s “ultimate” banana. According to Adweek, Dole donated 91,000 of the Gokusen to the marathon runners, but this year Dole wanted to make them extra special. Immediately after a runner crossed the finish line, their time would be posted on their Facebook page, garnering “likes” and comments from friends. This feedback, as well as their marathon time, would be printed onto the banana using edible ink. 200 participants were lucky enough this year to receive the “banana trophy.”

Dole’s marketing strategy was a booming success. The Gokusen was “shared” on Facebook over 720,000 times and even aired on the national news.

I think Dole was extremely tactile in the development of their unforgettable marketing campaign. They successfully advertised their product through nationwide platforms, reached their target segment of everyone in Japan, and managed to differentiate their product as the supreme banana (justifying a price two times that of regular bananas). The media cost for Dole was $0, but the publicity was worth over $1,100,000.

The next banana going into my banana guard will definitely be the Gokusen.

Enbridge, the pipeline company, has been aggressively positioning for the construction of two pipelines in BC for almost a decade. One of these pipelines is the North Gateway West line, projected to carry bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to Kitimat, BC. Many Aboriginal groups, including the Nak’azdli people, have fiercely opposed the pipeline. This resistance is one of the many PEST factors preventing the Northern Gateway Pipeline’s completion.

The ongoing conflict between the First Nations and Enbridge can be classified as a social factor. Although there are valuable economic benefits that come with the pipeline, there are anticipated fatal environmental damages deemed by the Nak’azdli to be not worth the risk (eg. the habitat of the treasured sockeye salmon and Nechako white sturgeon).

In order for Enbridge to surpass this cultural barrier, it is imperative that they convince Aboriginal groups of the pipeline’s security. This is especially challenging, considering their troubled past. Enbridge can develop an immediate spill-cleaning program, propose surefire methods of reducing spills, or devise a completely new, dependable system of transporting the crude. However, in order for this to be effective, it would take years of experimentation, tests, and applications to existing pipelines, before reaching a conclusive agreement.

With the enormous demand for post-secondary education, universities are producing thousands of university graduates each year, all expecting to obtain a rewarding job. But like what Cecile Ouillet’s post discussed, higher-level education does not guarantee higher-level jobs. Many graduates today are unemployed or take low-skilled occupations out of desperation, jobs that are achievable with a high school diploma and not worthy of specialized degrees and astronomical student loan debt.

Cecile mentioned that the reason students were unable to find satisfying employment was because of the sheer number of competition created by the massive amount of graduates. She recommended that students take advantage of opportunities offered by universities to distinguish themselves from other applicants, such as co-op and work experience programs.

However, I disagree. If 100 students are applying for 10 jobs, it is next to impossible to be selected for the position when other applicants are armed with the same university degree and work experience. In Nirmala Menon’s opinion from the Wall Street Journal, universities are not preparing students for the right occupation. Thus, I believe that there should be reform on how universities train students for future careers. Universities should inform students on details of the job market, which professions require workers, and where those professions are located. As a result, students can make their education more valuable and graduate with skills useful to the labour market.

Long gone is the era of steering wheels, stick shifts, pedals, and manual driving. It is officially the era of the self-driving car.

California assigned the first self-driving car permits not long ago (according to the Wall Street Journal). Of the three companies who applied, Google, Audi, and Daimler AG Mercedes-Benz, Google was awarded 25 test permits while the others received only two. This doesn’t come as a surprise, as Google’s driverless cars have been running successfully for ages, especially in the generation of Google Maps.

I believe that Google has a clear competitive advantage with a low degree of rivalry in the autonomous car business.

1. Google is the dominant supplier in the industry. They are a distinctive brand selling a very innovative product.
2. Google is targeting a new group of buyers that traditional automobile corporations ignore: the young, seniors, and handicapped.
3. There are no viable substitutes as there is currently no competition.
4. There are high entry costs barriers, especially the intellectual knowledge, high fixed costs, and specific assets required for production.

The advancement and progress made on self-driving cars is a brilliant move, and with these low-rivalry dynamics, there is no doubt Google will flourish in the industry.

With the latest frenzy in the long anticipated wait for Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus comes the controversy between Apple and Android yet again. The iPhone has the reputation of being the most technologically advanced smartphone, yet it has an irksome habit of “copying” the distinctive qualities of the Android.

The newly released Apple is eerily similar to past Android models, 4.7 and 5.5 inch screens, enhanced resolution, and a longer battery life (according to the Wall Street Journal). Apple has also cleverly installed components to conveniently ease the complications due to its cumbersome size, with gestures that allow the thumb to access any corner of the screen.

Apple has implemented a crafty marketing system to convince Android users to finally make the switch. Apple has managed to differentiate itself as a unique brand while mimicking its competition, and therefore can successfully lure in hesitant Android-users. Apple should continue with this strategy, as they are satisfying current consumers as well as attracting those from competitors’ markets. The iPhone has a myriad of points of differences compared to the Android, such as iMessage, fingerprint unlocking, and many Apple-exclusive apps. By maintaining these and inventing novel PoDs, as well as converting Android’s PoDs into PoPs, they will sustain their competitive advantage in the smartphone market.

It is a traditional belief that business and ethics can’t go hand in hand. This was a ubiquitous practice in businesses worldwide, yet there is currently a shift towards the coexistence of both business and ethics in modern markets.

According to business ethicist, Peter Ulrich, proper profit-seeking should be “always morally (self) limited.” Consequently, companies such as CVS have aligned themselves with this novel approach.

They established that they would terminate the sale of cigarettes and related products in order to streamline towards exclusively improving consumers’ health, albeit they would risk losing an estimated $2 billion in revenue (according to the New York Times). Although I personally agree with CVS’ rationale, their decision would only prove to be detrimental towards their sales. Cigarette companies have a myriad of retailers who are willing to market their goods, thus the resignation of one will be insignificant. Alternatively, CVS should retail nicotine replacement gums or E-cigarettes, products that hinder further nicotine addiction.

However, there is a long-term trend of cigarette usage declining to practically zero and a steady growth of health care. Thus, I believe that CVS has made the correct choice, in terms of both business and ethics.