Author Archives: SimonChow

For my last blog post this term I wanted to talk about Biden’s Build Back Better Plan and what it means for the future. With the election of President Joe Biden, there has been renewed hope in the fight for climate action. President Biden has rejoined the Paris Climate Accords, a set of nationally determined contributions (NDC’s) that are revised every couple years at the Conference of Parties (COP) where countries come together to negotiate and check in which each other on their climate targets. But on top of rejoining Paris, President Biden has passed an unprecedented $2 trillion dollar COVID-19 relief bill and is proposing another $2 trillion dollar infrastructure renewal plan. This is significant in that the scale is unprecedented, similar to the New Deal proposed by President Roosevelt after The Great Depression…. and it is a real possibility. Both Houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party and will therefore have a high likelihood of being passed.

Source: LA Times

Although infrastructure doesn’t automatically link you to climate change, nor does it sound too exciting, these proposals have enormous stipulations that are linked to green infrastructure. On top of that, there will be millions of direct and indirect jobs that will be created as a result. What this green infrastructure will look like specifically is making buildings more energy efficient, re-tooling jobs for the future as the shift away from coal intensifies, and increasing the efficiency of the electric grid, especially for electric vehicles. This long due investment into infrastructure is much needed, there are communities in America that do not have clean access to drinking water, stable wi-fi, and a reliable power source. This plan will not only boost the American economy but will also create benefits that will flow into Canada, given the interconnectedness of the North American economy.

This plan sounds great for the environment, but at the end of the day it’s a plan and is only in the beginning stages. One can only remain hopeful as we see what happens over the next 4 years of the Biden presidency.

With recent trends in sustainable consumption and healthy living, one product that has been garnering much attention in the media and the stock market are plant-based meat companies. These companies have had crazy IPOs (initial public offerings)  and have been highly overvalued as they are seen as the future to sustainable living. The problem that these plant based meats are proposing to solve is sustainable consumption. When taken in aggregate, meaning if you take into account the emissions needed to raise, transport, and process traditional livestock, the meat industry actually produces more carbon emissions than the transportation sector combined.

The key issue that The Very Good Food Company addresses is sustainable food sourcing. Plant based meats increases the sustainability of the planet by reducing consumption emissions and our dependency for traditional meat sources on land and below water (UN SDG’s 12, 13, 14, 15). Meat production can be carbon emissions intensive with raising livestock, transportation emissions, final packaging, and processing. In fact, household consumption of food has been found to emit more than the transportation industry combined due to the indirect emissions of transporting and raising livestock, thus creating additional externalities and costs. According to Our World In Data on average, raising and producing 100 grams of beef protein yields 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents, while a similar comparison of protein from beans generates 0.65 kilograms of emissions.

Source: CNN

By offering plant-based meat alternatives, companies like Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and The Very Good Food Company are trying to decrease consumption of said meat products with alternatives that are bean, tofu, or even corn based. However, one caveat is that these alternative meats can sometimes be very unhealthy. In order to replicate the taste of meat, these companies have created heavily processed production cycles that have add intense amounts of sugars, and sodium. So, the question is, are these meat-alternatives as healthy as they claim to be?

If theres one word thats been over used in this pandemic its: unprecedented. If you take it for its literal dictionary definition then you would know that there is actual precedent for COVID-19. That was the Spanish Flu seen in 1918, which lasted for 2 years and kicked off The Roaring 20’s, a time of new innovation and growth in the economy, sparked none other than businesses and entrepreneurs. However, whats changed from 100 years ago is that we are living in a globalized economy, everything is linked and COVID-19 has disrupted this global economy. Today, I wanted to talk about the potential this pandemic has for businesses and more specifically, how it has changed consumer behaviour and sustainability marketing.

The Roaring 20’s (Image Source: Financial Times)

According to an article by McKinsey, value is more essential than ever in the times of COVID, however this sentiment varies across different countries. I believe that this is because consumers are now thinking more about their spending while others, have saved and can spend on other non-essentials more freely. Indeed, the pandemic has impacted and exposed the different socio-economic classes and may have actually widened the gap. Another article by Deloitte highlights the importance of going digital, which was a similar finding the McKinsey article. Consumers need to feel safe in order to make a purchase and going online facilities this safety. In fact, digital sales have become more active than during the holiday period during the pandemic. Another finding from the McKinsey article is that there has been a shock to consumer loyalty. Although we love our favourite brands, the article showed that consumers are more price sensitive, want to find value, and are willing to try new things. However, besides value, convenience, and availability, consumers are also saying that purpose and quality are reasons why they would facilitate a purchase. The desire to support local, or the company’s vision would be purpose for example.

These findings have massive implications for how both traditional marketers and green marketers will move forward. Digital marketing will be more important than ever, and as new grads we must be prepared to adapt to this shift. Understanding how the consumer behaviour has shifted and how to integrate that shift into technological applications will probably define how we as a generation will take on this new roaring 20’s. But right now, I can only hope that this pandemic will be ending soon and look to an optimistic summer.

When it comes to the fast fashion industry and green marketing there are two things that come to my mind. One, the incredible amount of waste in raw materials and turnover in finished goods and two, the intense marketing efforts made by the industry as a whole. It’s no secret that the industry creates waste at every step of the supply chain whether it be the use of toxic dyes in the manufacturing process, the fossil fuels burned in the shipping process, or the fact that any piece of clothing will sit in a landfill for generations in the disposal process. In recent years, major fast fashion brands have seen a reckoning in the calls to boycott their brands, instead opting for more responsible consumption. The response from these fast fashion brands? – Create a new “green” product line.

Source: Elle

Two of the world’s biggest fast fashion giants H&M and Zara launched their eco fashion lines called Conscious and Join Life, in response to the growing consumer demands for sustainability. As UBC Sauder professor Katherine White says in her research, the consumer decision process is really beginning to shift, consumers are taking notice of sustainability and businesses to need know how to adapt. Taking these initiatives at face value, they may seem quite good. The companies are actually trying to take a step forward into reducing the impact of their products. H&M claims that the products from their line are made from at least 50% sustainably sourced materials. But, at the end of the day, what the heck does that mean?? These labels all sound good, but are they actually reducing impact? What does “Conscious” mean? What does “Join Life” mean? Look at the picture below! Does green automatically mean good?? To me it just seems very abstract titles to things that may not necessarily be good for the environment.

Source: H&M

This reminds me of one the class discussions we had with labelling, there are literally so many organizations and standards out there now, its really hard, especially for an average consumer to discern any meaning and difference between the various products on the market, what do they actually mean and how impactful are they? As it relates to fast fashion, I think following Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard‘s mantra is the best way forward, ignore all the fancy labels, green or not. Just simply consume less, and you’ll be doing the world a great favour.

For the past couple of years, I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Carol Liao speak in a variety of sustainability classes, roundtables, and events here at Sauder. Every time I have had the chance, I always learn something new. Having her come into COMM484 was no different. What the key thing I learned this time was the necessity of being an advocate in all fronts of any changing making process. I found this point to be particularly meaningful because I initially thought that the wins through litigation seemed very incremental and barely moved the needle in advancing higher standards for a more sustainable world and cleaner environment.What Carol said was that, sure litigation may be incremental, but it is also necessary to advance the cause. She said that whether it be through the litigation, legislation, protesting, applying labels (like the BCorp), or forming alliances (like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition) to innovate, it is necessary to attack a problem in all fronts. As someone who wants to make the most impact in the most efficient way as possible, this seemed counter-intuitive, but definitely changed my perspective.

Speaking of the law, just three days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the carbon tax enacted by the Trudeau government is legal. This is significant and links to Carol’s lecture where she highlighted that the Supreme Court of Canada already recognizes climate change as pure fact, and does not need to be established in court. This ruling from the Supreme Court goes further to say that the federal government has a responsibility to address this issue by creating a tax and that this an issue of national importance. This is truly unprecedented in any western country and is a huge win for the Trudeau government’s climate agenda. So there may be hope after all and some good news in 2021!

Source: Government of Canada

On a personal note, as I finally graduate from Sauder after 5 years, I’ve been considering what my next steps would be and something thats in the back of my mind is law school. What I’ve learned at Sauder has been invaluable. I have been able to study how real businesses innovate to create efficient solutions as well as meaningful and sustainable change in society. However, having also minored in Political Science, I have also seen how government is able to step in an enact widespread regulation across industries. This is where I believe the law can create something meaningful, as a combination of the two that could really catalyze innovation and sustainability. So having Carol, a distinguished professor from UBC Allard Law come in to speak at this time was really insightful and helpful! After hearing her speak, I definitely see myself applying to law school and hopefully be able to make an impact afterwards.

Source: The Atlantic

I came across this Sauder study on my feed the other day and I immediately thought about COMM484. The simple fact that produce labelled as “ugly” or “unattractive” is able to sell more intrigued me. When I first came across this concept of “imperfect” produce I thought it was such a niche idea. The fact that produce that was bruised, mis-shapen, and did not fit the picture perfect advert was not sellable in groceries automatically meant an immense amount of food wastage. According to SPUD, 30% of fruits and vegetables in North America are rejected in super markets because they are not attractive enough. I had learned about SPUD, a local Vancouver social enterprise, in my first year when working under the UBC Social Enterprise Club, so this wasn’t a new idea to me.

However, what UBC Sauder found and what surprised me was that as long as the label was applied, this produce was in fact able to sell more. Once the label was applied, any hesitancy was eliminated, despite there not being any difference in nutritional value or taste. According to UBC Sauder PhD student Siddhanth Mookerjee, the label notifies consumers of their bias which increases willingness to buy, effectively de-biasing the consumer. I thought this was extremely interesting and closely related to our class – especially our Sustainable Consumer Behaviour and Communications class. Grocers are further able to target consumer behaviour, especially those who truly value sustainability, and in some cases charge a commanding premium. The study mentions that even though “ugly” produce was sold at a 25% discount, it was actually more profitable since the acquisition cost was lower than the conventional produce. By labelling produce as “ugly,” super markets are able to effectively communicate and make a credible sustainability claim since it is evidenced right away with the physical appearance of the produce. Furthermore, I believe that this process of communicating to consumers that produce that are misshapen taste the same and have the same nutritional value is part of the education process in that grocers are able de-myth any misconceptions. I found this study to be really interesting! What are your thoughts?

I wanted to take some time to reflect on the documentary that we watched. Here are some of my key takeaways:

1. Ray Anderson was a pioneer and leader in sustainability very early on, before any of these sustainbility concepts went mainstream. It truly amazed me that he had his second epiphany in 1994. That was before most of us were born! Way before there was any real concept of climate change and global warming. Flash forward to 2021, most major companies on the planet have some sort of sustainability initiative going on, as well as integrating the 2030 UN SDG’s into their businesses. I think Ray Anderson would have been proud to see how far the movement has gone today.
2. Using business as the driver for innovation. I couldn’t agree more. Many of the luxuries we enjoy today have been a by-product of innovation from the business sector. Most coming from the industrial revolution. Combined with consumer demand and government pressure (in the form of carbon tax or research funding) I believe that business can really solve our generation’s greatest problems. The crux here is that we can make money while also do good. When David Suzuki described the economic value a tree could generate, I think it clicked for many of us as students in business school.
3. Despite uncertainty with recession and economic downturn, Interface persevered and double downed on their values. Ray Anderson was able to get buy in from his entire company, knowing that “this was who they were.” This is extremely admirable because Interface were the only ones doing it and again, this concept hadn’t hit the main stream yet. They were a carpet company! Even today, I wouldn’t really associate sustainability with carpet tiling, so that was another lesson for me! Going back to the focus on values, I find it extremely important. It really defines a company. Just yesterday, Mark from Portable Electric came in and briefly mentioned how he has team working on finalizing the company’s values and that the ones listed really resonated with him, underscoring the importance of values. 

Image Source: Ray Anderson Foundation

Those were just a few of my takeaways! I’m curious to hear what others thought of the documentary.

Wow, the last time I made a blog post here was Apr 2, 2017. At the end of my first year at UBC Sauder. Since then the world has changed a lot. COVID-19, recession, impeachment (x2), and a global climate strike, to name a few. But I’ve also changed a lot. I was able to do things I never would have imagined, travel to Kenya with the Sauder Social Entrepreneurship Program or go on exchange in Manchester, U.K. for 4 months. As I finish my last semester, I can’t help but reflect on the education I’ve received at Sauder, especially the sustainability courses I’ve been able to take.

I’m currently taking two sustainability courses to finish off my concentration in Sustainability and Social Impact, COMM 484 Sustainability Marketing and COMM 386L Impact Investing. I’m specializing in accounting, so taking these two sustainable marketing and finance courses is definitely something different, and really interesting. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I chose accounting (I’ve always appreciated being able to look at businesses qualitatively and quantitatively, which is basically what I think accounting offers).

But right now, I’m appreciating being able to see two sides of the same sustainability coin. These two courses have been very much discussion heavy which I absolutely love. Especially hearing different perspectives from my peers who also value sustainability. What I’ve learned with these two courses so far is that the world has come a long way into recognizing the need to be more sustainable, but more can be done. Whether it be through sustainability reporting disclosures or designing products that last longer for eco-conscious millennials, the call to do more and faster is as imperative as ever. Especially if the world is going to meet their targets set out in Paris (currently, most countries aren’t, the US and Canada included). World governments are going to reconvene in Glasgow, Scotland this November for COP26 (followup meeting to Paris) and what they set out will without a doubt have implications in business.

Source: United Nations

For a while now, we’ve heard from scholars like Michael Porter who say that Creating Shared Value is going to redefine the role of business in society. We’ve also seen business leaders like Yvon Chouinard who have successfully implemented these responsible businesses, but we’ve also seen such a huge shift from traditional firms like Blackrock or P&G to be more responsible. So it’s clear that firms really want to do better. The business case for corporate firms to be more sustainable, is literally and simply that it is more profitable to do so in long run. So as more and more students graduate from Sauder with this lens, I wonder what our roles will be as more and more firms also begin to adopt. Who will be the next entrepreneur with a green solution? Will there even be a need for a green advocate in a large multinational, or will it simply be the industry norm?

Source: Patagonia

(This post was definitely a longer one, but I just wanted to do an update and spew my thoughts here, I promise I’ll try and be more concise moving forward!)

source: University of British Columbia

 “Canada’s best employer to work for in 2017”or “Best places to work in Canada in 2017,” every year you may come across these corporate sponsored rankings, but have you actually thought of what kind of criteria these evaluations use? Today, I want to analyze these criteria and provide a metric for its overall effectiveness as well as limitations.

Interestingly, the University of British Columbia was actually ranked one of the best employers in British Columbia for 2017, coming in at 53 in all of Canada. The method that Forbes used to rank companies was based on an employee’s willingness to make a recommendation as well as their rankings on good or bad employers in sectors other than their own. In a ranking done by Glassdoor, the company took in criteria like company reviews, CEO approval ratings, salary, interview questions and benefits which were all verified with employees of the respective company. This data was collected from their own website where they collect testimonials and ratings on workplace environments.

I believe that the criteria used by Forbes was very limited and therefore skewed in the sense where there was clear under coverage bias. However, I believe that all rankings should include employee satisfaction or team member happiness, this criteria should be vital in determining whether one would want to work somewhere. Referring to Darren Chang’s blog post, he believes that motivation should be an effective indicator in the workplace as well as a strong tool for self-reflection. I agree to this point in the sense that if an employee were motivated to improve and advance the company’s mission they would be providing simultaneous growth to themselves and the workplace. Furthermore, I think that criteria like communication standards, workplace politics and a company’s decision-making process should be included in these rankings as metrics for freedom and creativity. Overall, my piece of advice is to always evaluate the criteria of these rankings before making a judgment, never take them for face value. (329)

Donald Trump, a textbook full of ethical violations. Not even two months in office and we have witnessed a record amount of precedents and protocols broken. This blog post will primarily focus on the ethics and personality behind Donald Trump’s toxic workplace environment, the White House.

One of the main controversies behind ethical violations in the White House is the nepotism with the appointment of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the President’s daughter and daughter in law to an unpaid advisory role in the executive branch of government. In reference to Nathan Yip’s blog his management style is forcing, Trump has no regard for rules or protocols that are set in place to prevent violations like this. His perception is skewed in that he believes he is an exception, making judgment shortcuts to become an anomaly. However, having family in the workplace? Illegal and unethical. Continued ties with his family and business violate US anti nepotism laws that were placed during the Kennedy administration. Therefore, we must come together to lobby and petition our politicians to enforce these checks and balances.

source: Business Insider

Another issue that I noticed with Donald Trump is his personality and beliefs, specifically his temperament. Evidenced through walking out on scheduled bill signing ceremonies, refusing to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand in front of the press, and further tweet rampages on his enemies. It almost seems as if he was a child wanting to be in a constant state of competition with everyone; having no regard for conflict resolution, cultural values and politics. In my last blog post, I wanted to remain hopeful, believing that Donald Trump’s government was only at the forming stage, however now it is past due. Through analysis, I believe that Trump’s government is currently storming and have yet to overcome the respective hurdles in the 5-stage model. (305)