Here's what I've got for Q2 on the most recent BUSS3 paper:
Payback: 2 years 3 months
NPV: 29.6m
I was happy to hear that there was broad agreement that these were the right answers.
Keep working hard and good luck on BUSS4.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Micheal O'Leary on Global Warming
Bullet Point 4 has to do with the factors which determine the extent to which a business is socially responsible.
We know that Anita Roddick was influential in her company and influenced The Body Shop's overall stance on corporate responsibility.
Here's a counter-example: Michael O'Leary of RyanAir giving his opinion about climate change. Will this have an effect on how resonsible RyanAir is to the environment?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/10/michael-o-leary-ryanair-global-warming
We know that Anita Roddick was influential in her company and influenced The Body Shop's overall stance on corporate responsibility.
Here's a counter-example: Michael O'Leary of RyanAir giving his opinion about climate change. Will this have an effect on how resonsible RyanAir is to the environment?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/10/michael-o-leary-ryanair-global-warming
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
How Socially Responsible is Nike?
Has Nike's effort since the mid 1990s made the company more socially responsible? Certainly Nike would like you to believe so.
For Jeffrey Ballinger, he's a bit more skeptical. Check out his article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ballinger02082006.html
Now a few words of caution: The source is Counterpunch, which appears to be a pretty left-leaning newspaper. This is from their internet site. I found this link after I saw Jeffrey Ballinger's name linked to some other high-profile criticism of Nike. So this argument is probably a bit one-sided, to put it mildly.
But it does have an interesting point: why has the CSR world suddenly done a U-turn on Nike and accepted the company as a leader in social responsibility, especially after so many years of criticising the company for its unfair practices. Mr. Ballinger would argue it's because Nike is an expert in branding, both of its shoes and its corporate image.
Why do we care? Because this links with Bullet Point 2: the importance of social responsibility relative to other objectives. If we assume that Nike is a company that has CSR as an objective but actually has other objectives which are more important, some of the arguments in this article could well be rolled into why Nike includes CSR as an objective, even if other objectives are clearly more important for the company.
For Jeffrey Ballinger, he's a bit more skeptical. Check out his article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ballinger02082006.html
Now a few words of caution: The source is Counterpunch, which appears to be a pretty left-leaning newspaper. This is from their internet site. I found this link after I saw Jeffrey Ballinger's name linked to some other high-profile criticism of Nike. So this argument is probably a bit one-sided, to put it mildly.
But it does have an interesting point: why has the CSR world suddenly done a U-turn on Nike and accepted the company as a leader in social responsibility, especially after so many years of criticising the company for its unfair practices. Mr. Ballinger would argue it's because Nike is an expert in branding, both of its shoes and its corporate image.
Why do we care? Because this links with Bullet Point 2: the importance of social responsibility relative to other objectives. If we assume that Nike is a company that has CSR as an objective but actually has other objectives which are more important, some of the arguments in this article could well be rolled into why Nike includes CSR as an objective, even if other objectives are clearly more important for the company.
Even Primark Drops Companies that Don't Have CSR Standards
Check out this case from the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2176170/Primark-drops-three-suppliers-over-child-labour-revelations.html
Summary: One of the businesses in India that Primark uses as a supplier was found to be using child labour in its production process. When Primark found out about this, they dropped them as a supplier and pulled from the store all the clothes supplied by that supplier.
Why do we care?
This links to Bullet Point 1. An advantage of being socially responsible means that you will have good relationships with your customers, your suppliers, and your stakeholders. So if a company is found to be irresponsible, as the Indian supplier was, even customers like Primark are going to put you at distance. And it's not like we're even talking about the most high-minded of companies making their distance: it's Primark. Even Primark is not going to be associated with a factory that uses 11 year olds.
Perhaps we could extend this research to other bullet points. When Primark made this decision, was it because of a moral stance or because of their need to not tarnish their image any further? Clearly, this decision was in their self-interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2176170/Primark-drops-three-suppliers-over-child-labour-revelations.html
Summary: One of the businesses in India that Primark uses as a supplier was found to be using child labour in its production process. When Primark found out about this, they dropped them as a supplier and pulled from the store all the clothes supplied by that supplier.
Why do we care?
This links to Bullet Point 1. An advantage of being socially responsible means that you will have good relationships with your customers, your suppliers, and your stakeholders. So if a company is found to be irresponsible, as the Indian supplier was, even customers like Primark are going to put you at distance. And it's not like we're even talking about the most high-minded of companies making their distance: it's Primark. Even Primark is not going to be associated with a factory that uses 11 year olds.
Perhaps we could extend this research to other bullet points. When Primark made this decision, was it because of a moral stance or because of their need to not tarnish their image any further? Clearly, this decision was in their self-interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)