If the United Nations were fully funded, it would be the global saviour as it removes all financial insufficiencies and eradicates poverty globally.  NGO’s and governments would never have to worry about funding.  However, this is the ultimate solution our world strives to achieve, but not the only result we wish to obtain.

While the UN can facilitate funding, it gives rise to one problem – interminable funding.  If the UN were to provide locals with sums of money to improve their quality of life, this is an impractical solution.  Without educating locals how to live independent of aid and succeed individually, they would not be able to progress further.  Locals would forever be dependent of the UN and this vicious cycle only continues in future generations.

On the other hand, the ARC and social enterprise focus on a “two-way exchange of knowledge and business skills” and equip communities with tools that they can further.  They identify and attack the root of problems rather than gifting quick fixes.  In other words, they focus on the process not the product only.  They strive to create value and increase social welfare.  Furthermore, this two way exchange facilitates mutual growth and increases economic welfare as both parties gain off each other.

The UN would definitely be an asset to launching projects and providing short term support, but the Arc and social enterprise is the sustainable and fruitful solution in the long run.  Therefore, our world needs both.

The purpose of physical activity is to free people from sedimentary lifestyles and escape technology, yet smartphones have become ubiquitous and found its way to potentially replace the fitness industry.

Personal trainers design workouts for clients, catering to their specific goals and body requirements.  In other words, workouts should be customized and different for everyone. How can a smartphone app be effective if it is designed to target the general population? Is it reliable to use an app created by developers with minimal or no health background? Workouts are designed to change human behaviour, yet researchers have found that fitness apps seldom incorporate such techniques.  So…will users ever gain that six pack?

I believe that the purpose of working out is to better one’s lifestyle physically and mentally. The goal is to improve or change bad practices so people can learn when or how to make correct choices (in health and life in general).  For example, personalized workouts train individuals to invest in physical activity and to budget caloric intake.  If people over consume, they gain a few extra pounds.  Similarly in life, people must make wise decisions.  Otherwise, they face unpleasant consequences.  Therefore, I view working out as an analogy to life.  Since people hold different problem solving skills and response methods, everyone’s approach to a challenge is unique; hence, workouts cannot be unanimous or generalized because human behaviour is not.

However, with technology growing faster than ever, apps may possibly be our future fitness experts.

Having been featured on Forbes and Wall Street Journal, The Broke and Beautiful Life blog has undoubtedly caught my attention with its remarkable posts.  A New Yorker, blogger, and theatre actress, Stephanie shares real life experiences of financial dilemmas typical a college student battles.  I find it always helpful to understand how others cope with similar struggles and learn off one another.  Stephanie’s examples are straightforward and easily relatable.  She provides clear and logical arguments with practical advice to consider.   Most importantly, her style of writing is captivating, which provided me a strong sense of feasibility towards her recommendations.

In “Is Assuming the Worst Keeping You From Saving Money?”, Stephanie thoroughly discusses assumptions and risks.  Having discussed risks in class, I still find myself lost whenever I imagine myself in a position where I need to make a vital monetary decision; a decision that could earn a fortune or rob everything I had.  Savings is definitely an essential component of my personal finances and I am eager to learn how to thrive in this respect.  A viable suggestion Stephanie has noted is: to assume less and research more.  This suggestion not only questioned my financial decisions but my method of performing tasks in general.  It leads me to realize how I draw conclusions too quickly and am overly conservative at times.  After all, life would not be colourful if risks did not exist.

In supermarkets, I always observe consumers participating in a careful procedure when selecting their produce.  For example, at the oranges section, consumers thoroughly scanned the entire and all its dimensions to find the “perfect” candidates.  Then, they would pick one up, toss it lightly, and feel its overall “weight” and the “thinness” of its skin.  If all those standards were met, the orange earned a spot in the bag.

In response to Cecile Ouillet’s blog post The Success of the Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables, it is not criminal to pick the perfect fruit, although slightly selfish.  Since consumers are fully entitled to spend their money based on goods they value most, I feel that consumers are justified to pick the items they believe are the best.   Consumers choose specific goods because they believe their purchases will benefit them in some ways.  This idea of “value” or “how much a good is worth” to a consumer brings us to the idea of consumer surplus.  Increase in consumer surplus leads to an increase in total surplus and economic welfare; thus increasing efficiency overall which benefits society in general.

On the other hand, sustainability must not be forgotten.  Aside from appearance, if the fruit or vegetable meets regulation and taste standards, I feel that consumers should consider “not to judge a book by its cover”.  As global citizens, consumers need to take into consideration the immense amount of waste they would create if each consumer only picked the best when they made their decisions.

Recently, the surging trend of companies partaking in environmental and social initiatives has sparked much skepticism.  I am doubtful if their true intent is to honestly change the world or rather to rebrand their image to become “clean” of blame.  Since corporate giants are obsessed with maximizing profit, it is hard to understand why they would break their greed addiction to allocate funds for global causes.  It doesn’t sound right.

With Class 15: CSR and Sustainability fresh in mind, Ben and Jerry’s has changed my perspective by spearheading its company with the core value “linked prosperity” among customers, employees, and suppliers.  From introducing fair trade flavours, to launching Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, to assisting local farms achieve their sustainable goals, Ben and Jerry has redesigned each part of its supply chain to uphold its position as an ambassador of social, economic, and environmental change.  Recently, Ben and Jerry’s recently partnered with NativeEnergy to help Green Dream Farm reduce its greenhouse gas and waste products by installing separation equipment.

Today, I have noticed that consumers’ biggest dilemma over a products is between their want and their conscience.  It is naturally uncontrollable to want something, but difficult to differentiate if it deserves one’s money.  Personally, I prefer companies with integrity than popularity.  Even if a product is the new trending fashion, I can never bear the gut feeling of supporting a company without ethical means.  I cannot submit to the status quo without knowing the true story behind.

Risk is a significant factor that businesses wish to eliminate (although impossible) if not reduce to a minimum.  Just Cookin, a small diner in Dallas has boldly decided to remove all prices off their menus!  Owner Dana Parris claims to have strong faith in God and her customers to pay what they believe the food deserves.  RISKY?  Although “revenues tripled in the first week”, its sustainability is highly questionable.  A week’s time to judge the feasibility of this strategy is simply not enough.

Increasing customer power by employing this strategy during holidays or long weekends can definitely be a practicable strategy, an attractive means of marketing, and a way to earn a little more.  However, in the long run, this tactic brings insecurity.  Business itself is already a gamble; hence owners need stability not uncertainty.  Let us consider the consistency of consumers’ payments.  Will customers pay reasonably every time based on their conscience?  People are obligated to pay less if one day’s food is below their standards.  It is easy for them to keep raising their standards and use it as an excuse to pay less each time.  It is also a matter of abiding to business ethics or cheating the system by paying nothing completely.  This may not be the case, but it is crucial to take all precautions and be a little pessimistic when analyzing risks and making decisions.

Ambitious energy project proposals such as the LNG and Site C mega projects have sparked mixed frenzies among Canadians and First Nation groups. Undoubtedly, these ambitious proposals has excited both provincial and federal governments with its golden opportunities for Canada’s future.  However, these projects unquestionably pose another habitual threat among our environmentalists: First Nation groups.

Undoubtedly, battles between the maximization Canada’s potential wealth and the protection of our pure environment will never cease.  How should we strike the balance?  Will governments and First Nations achieve consensus?  How can the government guarantee minimal disturbance among Aboriginals or how can First Nation groups yield and compromise?  Is this more than an environmental concern or a struggle for power?  These questions are the culprits of constant arguments between both parties.

With extended discoveries of natural gas in BC, the LNG project is a huge benefactor to the Canadian economy.  With the loonie plunging to $0.8996 USD, Canada’s economy has been stalled with zero growth as of July 2014 while the American economy continues to surge.  The LNG and Site C projects abounds with golden opportunities for Canada in countless respects.  These projects are pillars to strengthening our nation itself, trade and relations with countries, reinforcing Canadian presence in Asian markets in particular, and growing to be a world-class exporter of clean and economical natural gas.

Every decision is replete with opportunity costs, but who calls the final shots?  The existing government or the true inhabitants of “Kanata”?

Image: WestJet vs. Air Canada

Recently, WestJet announced its new route from Halifax to Glasgow effective May 29, 2015.  This announcement complements our Class 9: Management Accounting discussion and the debating question from this Class 9 preparation article.  Since WestJet is expanding its flight destinations, an investment of bigger planes is quite feasible.

WestJet’s main competitor among Canadians is unquestionably Air Canada (AC).  In terms of comfort, AC undoubtedly reigns over WestJet with its new, spacious aircrafts.  However, AC’s package includes two connecting flights to reach Glasgow starting from $908 (round trip) while WestJet proposes a direct flight with a considerably attractive price of $259 (one-way fee).  These aspects are pending opportunity costs that travellers need to earnestly consider.

The real question is: are WestJet’s current planes suitable for the 5 hour 15 minutes flight?  If WestJet remains a loyal ambassador of the Boeing New Generation 737 series, they will be exposed to greater risk.  Indeed its low prices attract consumers, but the uncomfortable idea of limited leg and isle space can repel customers.  Apart from its low cost, WestJet’s “direct flight” offer is a prominent convenience to travellers as it reduces hassle and guarantees efficiency.  However, WestJet cannot rely solely on these two strengths to achieve of success forever.  As we discussed strategy in Class 7, WestJet needs to realize the ease for its competitors to offer the same services.  WestJet can no longer propel its company based on “sustainable competitive advantages” but rather explore transient competitive advantages.  Investing in larger planes is only the beginning step.

According to Emily’s blog post, Canada’s supreme Tim Hortons’ merge with the controversial Burger King has aroused national panic among Canadians.  Canadians fight to distinguish themselves from Americans, but can we still do so with our top Canadian brand sold to our infamous neighbour? In response to Emily’s dilemma, Canada Goose is our hopefully our saviour.  The internationally acclaimed Canadian brand for winter expedition jackets spearheads its core value, “We stay in Canada because that’s who we are”.  Bingo!  That is exactly what Canadians beg to hear.  The company strongly insists to keep ALL production in Canada.  By setting itself afar from the “made in China” or made in (insert third world country)” convention, Canada Goose has identified a highly effective marketing strategy.  Alike other consumers, I would instill more trust in a product produced in a first world country – knowing the quality is finer and safer, and the good is produced without unjust labour.

Canada Goose’s robust brand image is exactly what the remaining Canadian companies need to evolve into.  Tim Hortons made a mistake, but let’s prevent others from following so. Canadians should be valued, not only among ourselves, but on a greater scale – worldwide.  We are exhausted of living under the American shadow.  From Eaton to HBC and now Tim Hortons, Canada truly does not need further adoption from the US.  It is about time we preserve if not differentiate our identity from America and Canada Goose may be our leader.

Image: Canada Goose Parkas

Olive Garden caught my attention by its seemingly health conscious brand name.  The combination of “Olive” – one of the world’s healthiest foods, and “Garden” – a plethora of fresh greens, led me to believe that Olive Garden is a healthy family diner OR a classy high-end restaurant.  However, Olive Garden is the antithesis of my hypothesis but rather an Italian restaurant chain infamous for its unlimited servings of carbohydrates.

“Fettucine Alfredo.”  Darden Concepts, Inc., 2014.  Web.  17 Sept. 2014.  <http://www.olivegarden.com/menu/fettuccine-alfredo/prod80168>.

Olive Garden employs the “everything refillable” concept, but this is a questionable business strategy.  Apart from drinks, soups, salads, Olive Garden offers unlimited bread and PASTA on specific weeks.  How does this benefit the company?  This offer restricts the number of customers per day if everyone spends more time at meals to maximize their benefit of the offer.  Customers who were initially attracted by the offer are driven away if table turnover is impossible.  Also, customers are rapidly consuming the business’ inventory which pressures the company’s costs.

Olive Garden is putting stress on its revenue, quality control, and the well-being of their staff.  As experienced by Holmes, an Olive Garden server is physically, emotionally, and mentally excruciating.  In conclusion, seldom do restaurants promote “everything’s refillable” except for the buffet industry.

References:

Holmes, David.  “Olive Garden Servers Have One of the Toughest Jobs in the Industry.  Trust Me – I Used to Be One.”  PandoDaily.  PandoDaily, 16 Sept. 2014.  Web.  17 Sept. 2014.  <http://pando.com/2014/09/16/olive-garden-servers-have-one-of-the-toughest-jobs-in-the-industry-trust-me-i-used-to-be-one/>.