Week 41 Feedback to: Paulina Gual

Original post: 4rd Assignment

Dear Paulina,

Reading your blog is a truly intellectually stimulating experience. The arguments you presented are well rounded and showed high clarity. In your arguments, you tied the theories we learned in the course to the examples in the documentary observations, which made the legitimacy analysis convincing. I especially appreciate the short summary of the three types of isomorphism before you brought them in the analysis.

-----Part 1-----

I completely agree that coercive isomorphism best describes Nokia and its supplier’s efforts to legitimize themselves. The external pressure from another organization provided both organizations driving force to change. However, I am not sure if I agree with you on the supplier’s effort to gain legitimacy being more evident. I feel that the supplier is deeper down the supply chain and its sustainability performance does not affect the overall image of Nokia product easily. After all, the components it produces is not very visible on a cellphone among thousands of other components. Therefore it’s easier for the supplier to get by without coping with the newly introduced policy.

In this case Nokia did not react strongly or provide any pressure for improvement. If the supplier’s business is truly at stake, we would probably see the management level doing a better cover up job in the factory rather than admitting hiring labors without a contract or paying lower than minimum wage. My guess is that this supplier might hold a critical technology for certain components and it has few competitors on the market. That’s why it did not seem to be afraid of its behaviour triggering negative results.

-----Part 2-----

I can’t agree with you more regarding the needs for more government intervention in ensure the sustainability standards can be met. To be in compliance would be a minimum requirement for a business to exist and therefore the basic code of conduct it subscribes to. If the supplier cannot even satisfy legal requirements, NOKIA also bears the responsibility of poor oversight. It came shocking to me that the NOKIA consultants has such limited knowledge of the local regulations. It’s either that NOKIA expects its supplier to be fully in compliance without a doubt or it does not care for the legal status more than low cost cellphone components.

If we come back to this case for the interactions between the organizations, maybe addressing possible actions that can be taken from NOKIA’s side to enhance implementation of sustainability standards at the Chinese supplier’s factory could be another direction to pursue. Since sustainability goes beyond the company and deeper into the supply chain, ultimately the goal is to mobilize a self-organization mechanism. Doing so, besides fulling the legal requirements, NOKIA and its business partners could have more capacity to make themselves more competitive in a market that values sustainability.

Thank you for the inspiring article. It really helps me understand the concepts of the reading assignments. I like the neutral tone you use in the article. It certainly makes the criticism more convincing. Great job!

Cheers,
Sho

Week 41 Feedback to: Zev Starmans

Original post: Nokia; implementing sustainability values along the supply chain?

-----Part 1-----
Zev,
The arguments you made in your blog articles show good clarity. I can understand the points and examples you deliver very well. Your analysis is very different from mine while we shared more or less the same views so it was interesting to read your blog.

For the first question, it’s great that you didn’t fall for the details right away. Instead you provided a big direction of sustainability improvement leading Nokia’s way to legitimacy. It would be interesting to know your evaluation of how hard Nokia has tried to demonstrate their efforts for legitimacy just as an observation. It was very well noted in your argument that the supplier is striving for legitimacy at its lowest accepted value. Also I think you pointed out an important role in the motivation for legitimacy, the government. There is for sure a discrepancy in the operation standards between Nokia and its supplier. I feel that since Nokia is introducing these new standards, it has the responsibility to convince the supplier to bridge the gap and elevate the suppliers’ labor benefits and industrial safety practices.

However, I am not sure if I agree with you on the opinion of Nokia not caring about the local value (I suppose it includes the local regulations). I think for a Nokia would be very cautious about the fact that their supplier does not meet the legal standards. The reason is that Nokia is extending its sustainability standards onto its supply chain members. If the supplier is not even in compliance, Nokia will also get in trouble and fail its sustainability performance assessment. My view is that it’s not that Nokia does not care, they simply do not know about the local regulations.

-----Part 2-----

I agree with the good guy theory you provided here. In this way Nokia is not really responsible for the compliance failure of the supplier. Furthermore, maybe it intentionally wants to make the supplier look bad to show that Nokia has high standards of sustainability. The supplier is also probably too deep down in the supply chain to be seen on the market as a brand. So even if consumers who make purchasing decisions by the brand’s reputation, the information about sustainability is probably not readily accessible for the consumers. I definitely agree with your opinion about Nokia’s lack of sincerity when conducting an audit. Even if it’s not an official audit I would disagree with their approach since Nokia wasn’t really checking the working condition of the component product line that goes to Nokia.

To improve the efficiency to introduce higher sustainability standards, you made a good point of bringing third party certification organizations to do the job. To the outsiders, I agree it would be much more convincing to be endorsed by an independent certifying organization. With that being said, I think it’s still critical to conduct internal audits to ensure the performance of the factory. In the class we learned about isomorphism that makes organizations more and more similar, in your opinion, would this type of certification be driven by coercive pressure, mimicry, or normative pressure? How about for the benchmarking?

Week 40 Feedback to: Milan Veselinov

Feedback to Milan Veselinov
Original post: Assignment 3 – The SES of the internet

Dear Milan,

First of all, I would like to let you know that the article is very well structured. The paragraphs and themes as well as the graphs, links, and the sub-titles are very well organized and they do a tremendous job leading readers through a topic that they have never seen. I also like the story-telling tone of this blog. It gives a personal touch and brings the readers closer to the topic. It reminds me of a friend who wrote books about adventurous stories also uses this similar tone throughout his books. (http://goo.gl/nrfzms)

Your choice of social-ecological system is indeed unique, considering that internet isn’t commonly characterized as a natural resource in a ecological system. Furthermore, the concept of internet does not exist in a physical way, making it more challenging topic. However, you are able to specify your scope and explain how internet requires to be driven by power and therefore consumes natural resources. In addition to that, you also explained how internet also has direct impact when performing its normal function by producing carbon dioxide. I find the system definition convincing. Also I agree with you that the human made system is not very different from natural resource system in this case since internet can be seen as a derived resource.

The subsystems of the SES are well presented in your article. I like the way you explained the internet suppliers as the ones who put data in order because it reflects reality. However, when it comes to the resource items, I am wondering if other elements that could possibly limit the internet speed, accessibility, development, etc. can be further explored. The reason why I asked this is that this summer my country (Taiwan) just introduced 4G internet for smartphones so it’s relatively slow compared with neighbouring countries Japan and Korean market. As far as I know the facilities were just not fully equipped to be upgrading the service to consumers and therefore the delay. As limiting factors that could contribute to different outcomes I wonder if they are something on the same level as resource item that can be discussed here. Also, I am interested to know if different types of users also have different interactions with other subsystems such as the resource units and the governance system. If so, how would you characterize them?

You did a fantastic job adding the challenge of SES in the article. I think this information shines a light on the main issue you would like to address and brings focus to this resources. Otherwise internet is a broad topic and it’s less interesting if there is no real-life issue awaiting to be solved. With that being said, I do want to confirm if my understanding is correct. Do you mean the challenge is to provide well-covered service in order to achieve internet of things?

For Friedman’s principle argument, I am not sure if I agree with you on the on-line hours not having the market value. As internet shopping becomes easier over time, commodities that are traded over internet represent the market demands. This information can be gathered and used for marketing and product promotion purposes that are designed to drive more consumption. In the USA, thanks to the membership system for chain retailers and online shopping that require log-in, retailers know about its consumers’ pregnancy before the consumers’ family do. Same thing can be observed include websites visited and keywords that one searches on google.com. These are all data that are able gathered and possibly sold for business purposes.

The last question you asked was as awakening as the speaker in the TEDex link you provided. If everything is recorded, monitored and controlled, no one would be able to enjoy the rights to privacy anymore. I believe there needs to be stringent rules and strong oversight of such business operation if google does have the majority of the market share so that it does not violate its consumers’ (users’) interest just because it does not have anything to lose due to the lack of competitors. With minimised government intervention and letting the market self-regulate, it is possible that the society which rely highly on the internet could be sharing the same fate of the internet company. That is to say, if google goes down, the system that involve all the things of the internet will lose its function and my heart rate monitor machine as mentioned in the video would not be able to notify the pharmaceutical company of my heart condition to send a “buy my medicine” ads to my phone while waiting for my ambulance. A big part of the industry would need to go back to the old-fashion way to carry out business. My conclusion is, huge risk is involved with this type of self-regulation and I do not have so much faith in the industry to uphold its value and social responsibility.

Great work! Your article made me think a lot!

Hsiu-Chuan (Sho)

Week 40 Feedback to: Francesco Donati

Feedback to Francesco Donati
Original post: Social Ecological Systems – Land snails in Ossi – Sardinia)

Dear Franco,

First of all, I enjoy reading this analysis thoroughly because the SES you chose was very close to everyday life and it grabs my attention to see the development of the management of this resource. The introduction was very well written because it provides important information for readers to understand how this resource was utilized for various purposes. This helps the later on analysis on the resource scarcity problem.

The theory about increasing food demand causing the snail population to drop was clear to me. I also like the fact that the impact beyond the snail population was addressed. Regarding the core subsystems of land snail SES, I also have a few questions about the elements of resource units as well as the users. The resource system chosen here is the dry grassland and the main subject studied in this case is land snail. Could the resources provided by the dry grassland system to snails as habitat and nutrient sources also be described as individual resource units that interact with snails?

Furthermore, could the users be broken down into more specific roles such as harvesters or consumers? These two roles were frequently mentioned in this article and both display a vital impact on the SES so maybe they can also be specified to distinguish their action and impacts, respectively.For the users, the information about the percentage of local consumption and the snails imported was both shocking and gives weight when assessing the severity of the local resources scarcity.

In addition, this might be something slightly outside of the discussion scope defined in the assignment but I am also very curious about the tipping point of the self-organization that was functioning well and keeping the snail population and food demand in balance. Why would the Sardinian population growth break the self-organization? More specifically, who were the decision makers that chose to not follow the traditional harvesting methods? Why did they choose to not follow the old-fashion practice?

Finally, I want to compliment you on the well-integrated analysis and the references. Links of resources embedded in the article with hyperlinks give weight and credibility of the information you provided in the analysis. As a reader, I feel that I don’t need to do extra research to verify the sources. This creates a smooth reading experience for readers. Well done!

Cheers,
Sho

week 39 - Feedback to: Jorinde Vernooij

Feedback to Jorinde Vernooij 

Part 1: (Original post: WHAT IS DECIDING OUR DECISIONS?)

First of all I would like to compliment on how the author structured the article. As a blog reader, I find it easy to follow the blog and the reasoning. The author cited the research papers of the theories and use that as a backbone throughout the article to explain how the position of the article has been developed. This gives the readers a clear picture of how the theories fit into the existing concept of bounded rationality and rational decision making.

The author clearly defined the goals of the topic as the economic growth and regulation compliance in the beginning. From the four reasons provided in the third paragraph, it seems that nuclear energy is qualified as an option in order to reach the goals because of its low CO2 emission, its low risk of accidents, and its high economic feasibility. The three reasons that the CDV used to back up its preference for nuclear energy seem reasonable from the first glance. However, many follow-up questions could also be asked in this case such as the source of the uranium fuel rods and the acceptable risks of nuclear power plant and nuclear waste. Can the Netherlands supply itself with uranium ore? Are the risks of final disposal and handling of nuclear waste considered lower than the risks of other energy options? I wonder how CDV could address these issues and justify its decision making as a rational decision making in this case.

In the end of this article the author pointed out the lack of knowledge of the local market and CDV’s limited research on other types of radioactive energy. The limited information that the CDV possesses to present the energy options are well addressed here and therefore it is convincing for a reader to agree with the characterisation of CDV as an organisation with bounded rationality.

Part 2: (Original post: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPINION)

I really like how the title is given a new life in each post in this blog. It inspires me to think the same question. The author argues the definition of success and interests are different in Friedman’s article and the documentary. The author further argues that the costs of business operation have been shifted to the employees of lower-income countries to absorb. And this is the consequence of corporations trying to save money rather than investing in upgrading the social and environmental conditions. Through these actions, businesses are able to generate more profits while fulfilling all legal requirements.

In Taiwan, the country where I come from, many companies that strive to maximize their profits are not even able to keep up with their environmental standards with legal requirement. The problem then shifted to farmers downstream of the factory’s discharge pipe. Then finally the problems will be shifted to the consumers who buy the rice. Therefore I think Friedman’s proposition has too much confidence in corporations being able to do everything right according to the social expectation. And if keeping up with the legal standards is so difficult, why should greedy be seen as a driver for a system?

week 38 - Feedback to: Romée de Blois

Feedback to Romée de Blois (Original post: assignment 1. Tomatoes & Business)

Part 1: Ecology-inspired puzzle

I like the choice of topic because of its timing and local relevance with real-life situation. The author made a clear point to addresses the limitation of the choice of crops. I very much agree with the beginning of the first point about the variety gives consumers more options. The argument is convincing to me since price could be an important deciding factor (could even be the most important factor for the majority of consumers)for purchasing. However, there are also other deciding factors when consumers make their decisions to buy tomatoes. For this case, if would be helpful for readers to create a scenario in our head as a consumer if the author can address the relative importance of purchasing factors. If the author can provide the assumption that the most important factor is price, it also helps the readers to focus on the argument.

The second point about the limitation of shelf period and the stress to sell leads to price cut down is well addressed and convincing. The third point about one farmer’s action impacting the market is also well-established. I find the three points all have different aspects. The three theories are also well arranged in order because they are from local scale to a bigger scale of impact. However, I can’t seem to see the correlation between the conclusion in the last paragraph with the rest of the article. The three theories were well developed in the previous paragraphs. The last paragraph addressed the issue of volatility of tomatoes market value and overall impact for farmers. It was good information but I feel that it looks more like another observation that can be independently discussed.

Part 2: “the business of business is to increase its profits”
The way that the author uses biology as an analogy for business is interesting. Using the achievements in the nature to compare with profit is a brand new perspective to me. In this article what I like the most is the non-traditional definition of profit because it takes the long term (positive) impacts into consideration instead of the traditional definition that only involves the monetary value . In that sense the author works with a different basis than Friedman.

What Friedman considered as social responsibility might have been incorporated into the definition of profit in this article. Under the author’s definition, The externalisation of environmental cost would probably be considered as non-profitable based on the author’s position. Therefore achieving improved sustainability performance would perhaps be more common during the process of profit-making according to the author’s definitions.

week 38 - Feedback to: Vigil Yu

Feedback to: Vigil Yu (IE puzzle + business&profit)
Part 1: IE puzzle
The article is well structured and it helps the readers to follow the author’s opinions through all the main points. The link between the topic and industrial ecology is very clear. The three theories are all well presented. I find the theories convincing and easy to understand from a consumer’s point of view.

I especially like the last two paragraphs about the trend of sustainability performance with the business performance. It gives a personal touch to the theories the author developed and demonstrated the author’s interests in this topic.

There’s just one thing I am not so sure how to create the link to. I agree that the GDP information in the first theory could probably be seen a factor of purchasing power and influences the buying decisions ultimately. However, it might be able to be considered as a separate point because without the GDP information the theory still makes perfect sense.

Part 2: business&profit

I find the article interesting to read. It provides a lot of background information as well as an example that illustrates the challenges of fulfilling the business social responsibility. In the first paragraph, the way that the author broke down the business structure to pick a specific role within business is very clear and also eye-catching to me.

The example in this article made it easy to visualize a real-life situation. It shows a good point about the impact could reach beyond the single business operation. It also shows when decisions are made to gather more resources for the single profit generating process, resources for other business operations will be taken away, causing quality changes in other services. In this case, the conflicting interests between the pig farmer and the red worm compost owner are well demonstrated through the competition for the same resource in order to generate profit.

I feel that with this case, the author clearly demonstrated that Friedman’s theory could lead to greater negative social impact given that certain business benefits from a larger profit margin. Therefore, it is questionable if Friedman’s statement should be considered as beneficial for the society in the bigger picture. However, I was not able to identify a clear correlation between the conclusion and the example. It seems to me that the conclusion is more supportive of what Friedman stated rather than what the example demonstrated.