Monthly Archives: November 2014

”If  the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

The United Nations is primarily known for “peacekeeping, peace building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance” (“Bodies”). In a way they maintain and develop relations between countries in order to improve the standards of living and human rights. On the other hand, “social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems(“What is”)”. The Arc Initiative is a program created by the Sauder School of Business to build a relationship between countries through collaboration with the goal of increasing economic wellbeing.

I believe that it is essential to keep programs such as the Arc Initiative or the concept as social enterprise even if United Nations was fully funded. This is because the United Nations aim to increase the way of life in terms of healthy living. However social enterprise and the Arc Initiative can ensure and provide further education in terms of business. The Arc Initiative provides further knowledge to countries such as South Africa, Ethiopia, Columbia and Rwanda.

Sources

“Bodies, History, Visits, Employment, Address, Members, Budget, Information.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/>.

“Sauder School of Business.” The Arc Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative>.

“What Is a Social Entrepreneur?” Ashoka. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <https://www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur>.

The following opinion by Richard Williams is part of an extensive debate whether the F.D.A. regulate the use of “Natural” on Food Products. Since 2002, the word “organic” has been defined and regulated (“What Makes”). However, the Food and Drug Administration has declined to define the frequently used term “natural” (“What Makes”).

In 2012, two mothers were suing General Mills, stating that the company had labelled its products as natural when they actually contained highly processed ingredients (). Williams states that defining the term would be a waste of F.D.A resources as it would cost money and labour to try defining labour. In addition, individuals try to avoid food that has been genetically modified (even if it has been deemed by safe). He believes that people who want to eat “natural” should research and pay attention to the nutrition label.

In my personal opinion, I disagree with William’s point of view. I believe that the consumers should know what they are buying and should receive accurate information. Therefore, it is important that the F.D.A. should define natural, because ultimately, the consumers should know what they are putting in their bodies. If not, the F.D.A. should encourage companies to try to stay away from using the word “natural” in their marketing.

Sources

“Defining ‘Natural’ Is a Waste of F.D.A. Resources.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Froomfordebate%2F2014%2F11%2F10%2Fshould-the-fda-regulate-the-use-of-natural-on-food-products-15%2Fdefining-natural-is-a-waste-of-fda-resources>.

Strom, Stephanie. “Lawsuit Forces General Mills to Defend the Accuracy of Its ‘Natural’ Labeling.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 July 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/business/general-mills-sued-over-natural-labeling.html?_r=0>.

“What Makes ‘Natural’ Natural?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/10/should-the-fda-regulate-the-use-of-natural-on-food-products-15>.

This blog post is a response to Jocelyn’s post, where she discusses the different employee strategies implemented by Google and Walmart, and which maximizes profit.

As Jocelyn mentioned, the two companies have very different ideologies in respect to employee benefits. Google gives free food, massages, bike repairs, hair care as well as full health insurance coverage. While on the other hand, Walmart doesn’t even supply health coverage for part time workers. In retrospect they are trying to make more profit, Walmart is trying to cut their labour costs while Google is attempting to keep employees motivated to innovate. I ultimately agree with Jocelyn that Google’s strategy may be more profitable in the long run. The employees would be motivated to stay working rather than quitting, which ultimately increases productivity.

It has also been proven by Zappos. They have created an environment in which all employees feel equal and a vital part of an organization, as if they have purpose, which in return, have caused them to fully support the company. I believe adopting this ideology and employee mindset is essential for a company to prosper as it then becomes not only the head of the company’s job but also the employees job to ensure profits.

Sources

“Google Adds Benefits, Walmart Cuts Them; Oddly, the Logic Is the Same.”Harvard Business Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <https://hbr.org/2014/11/google-adds-benefits-walmart-cuts-them-oddly-the-logic-is-the-same>.

Jacobs, Alexandra. “Happy Feet – The New Yorker.” The New Yorker. N.p., 04 Sept. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/14/happy-feet>.

“Jocelyn Kwong’s Blog.” Jocelyn Kwongs Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/jocelynkwong/response-to-google-adds-benefits-walmart-cuts-them-oddly-the-logic-is-the-same/>.

This blog post is a response to John’s post on Toula Drimonis’ reaction to the Jack Astor’s ad shown above.

Toula Drimonis’ View

In Drimonis’ blog post she touches upon the fact that the following advertisement is not only “tacky and sexist” but also demeaning for women as they use the derogatory term ‘cougar'(Drimonis). She claims that doing so they are promoting the idea that older women who date younger men are “overly sexualized predator(s) on the hunt for helpless animals”(Drimonis). She also mentions the double standards regarding the reaction of when men date women younger than them and when women do.

John Whaley’s View

John believes that although “Drimonis has a valid point in terms of the phrasing of the sign” and he understands why some individuals would be offended by the ad, the ad may still be deemed as affective. John mentions that the brand is known for “gaudy advertisements, attractive waitresses and their appeal to dry humor” and affectively brands themselves for their target market.

My View

I agree with John to an extent, in which Jack Astors is simply effectively targeting their market. Although the advertisement is effective, is it necessary? I believe that their advertisement was completely unnecessary. In retrospect, ads today are becoming less and less sexist in their views (compared to the 50’s) as the ideologies of society have changing. More people have been supportive of basic human rights which includes equality. However, the ad that they have portrayed defames and distorts women, albeit not the the extent Nine West has with its new line of shoes. Therefore, by supporting such ads there will be people that would be offended, like Drimonis, which would create a negative views associated to the restaurant. I believe that Jack Astors should think of redefining their values and goals into a way that adheres to the mindset of society today.

Sources

Drimonis, Toula. “Jack Astor’s New Sexist Ad Proves They Really Are Asses.” The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/toula-foscolos/jack-astors-sexist-ad_b_5555943.html>.

Newman, Andrew Adam. “A Suggestion for the Right Shoe for Unusual Moments.” The New York Times. The New York   Times, 31 July 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/business/media/a-suggestion-for-       the-right-shoe-for-unusual-moments.html?ref=media&_r=2>.

Whaley, John. “John Whaley’s Blog.” John Whaleys Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.                                      <https://blogs.ubc.ca/jwhaley/2014/11/07/jack-astors-new-sexist-ad-proves-they-really-are-asses/>.

taken from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-23/aid-groups-are-using-drones-to-save-lives#r=nav-f-story

Rigi’s drone that drops life preservers

Since their creation, autonomous and remote controlled drones (like UAVs and PRAs) have been used as tools of surveillance as well as violence. They are known for being a weapon employed in feuds that has become increasingly popular as it insures and promotes safety of pilots. The following article discusses Amin Rigi’s belief that “drones should be used to save lives, not spy or kill”, his innovation and the vast capabilities that drones possess for the greater good. According to the article, Rigi is “launching RTS London to manufacture flying robots that drop life preservers to drowning people”(Leiber). In addition, in the past, UAVs have been experimented with by organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, the UN as well as, WHO in hopes of preventing poaching, finding survivors of natural disasters and other humanitarian tasks (Leiber).

Will this work?

Like any other technological advancement, I believe that the use of drones for humanitarian purposes will definitely revolutionize the ways in which we can preform tasks with the focus of peace and safety. Especially since the technology is still, as the article put it, in “its shiny object phase”, in other words, not still fully developed and can be improved upon. There are many hurdles that must be overcome. First of all, the possible negative stigma behind drones would have to be reduced. As the product would be sold commercially it is important to distinguish military drones from the ones being sold for safety reasons. However They will also need to be able to ensure the public that privacy standards will be maintained. The main reason why I think it would work is because the product is creating a new market segment by simply redefining an existing version of itself.

Works Cited:

Leiber, Nick. “Using Drones to Make Peace, Not War.” Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg, 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 08                Nov. 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-23/aid-groups-are-using-drones-to-save-                               lives#r=nav-f-story>.