Disney, a name usually associated with joy and happiness, a name that makes children (and even adults) smile. I mean, everyone knows Aladdin, right? A whole new world? Well, not for Disney employees! In the article “Disney to Probe Labor Claims in China Factory," employees in Disney’s Chinese factories are being unjustly exploited. These employees that produce Disney’s “joy” to be spread all over the world are, in fact, unhappy at all. After reading the article, it has come to my attention that Baron’s framework perfectly fits this concern, in which the four I’s stand out clearly.
Issues: There are 3 main issues in this article, which are: - Unsafe working conditions that these employees face - Long working hours per day (10-13 hours) - Below minimum wage salaries
Interests: The main entities that have a stake in this issue are the labor rights advocacy groups. However, Disney itself and the Chinese factories and employees are also involved in the issue, as this could have an effect on their image and future as well.
Institutions: The institution involved in this issue is the National Labor Committee, which is there to preserve employee rights and bring out justice whenever their rights are taken from them.
Information: This article visibly interprets and explains the issue, not to forget the role the media played in spreading the news. Furthermore, the tape that the National Labor Committee released played a big part in portraying the actual happenings in these Chinese factories. Additionally, Disney attempted to gather information by hiring Verite to conduct an investigation into the issue.
Even though many consumers worldwide don’t know about this matter, it is a serious problem to Disney, as this non-market issue could turn into a market one almost instantly. If these allegations are completely true and the public do find out, this could lead to declines in sales and seriously damage the Disney’s reputation in the eyes of its customers. So I think these employees should fight for their rights, and cry “no one to tell us no, or where to go” as Aladdin sang to Jasmine on the magic carpet ride over the city of Agrabah.
Put yourself in this situation: you're working for a company, who doesn't pay you, not on time atleast, feeds you sub-standard food, and, to make it worse, when you finally gather up that courage to lodge an official complaint, they kick you out of your home, or so called labor camp. Hard to imagine? Not really. This incident occured a while back when a couple of Qatari firms threw out 93 Indian workers after they complained about their unpaid salaries. This incident caused India to blacklist 11 Qatari firms and putting 35 others on the watchlist.
After reading the articles relating to this issue, Baron's framework clearly stood out as it is hard to miss the four I's in relation to the incident. We can also see some of Hamel's framework, but the dominant perspective is Baron's.
Issues:The mistreatment of Indian workers and not paying their salaries. Also, the substandard quality of life in labor camps.
Interests:The enitities to do with this issue are mainly the Qatari firms, the Indian workers, and the Indian embassy.
Institutions:The Indian Embassy is considered an institution. In addition to Qatar's Human Rights Committee and the Foreign Ministry.
Information:Information about this issue can be acquired through the media coverage. Further actions from both parties (Qatar & India) can also be sources of information. For example, putting 35 firms on a watchlist is another way of seeing that India is giving Qatari firms a chance to redeem themselves for their behavioral errors and unjust actions.
As for Hamel's framework, it is noticeable that there might be some sort of coalition between the Indian workers. These workers formed a group (coalition) and complained altogether, which is obviously more effective than having single people complain one at a time. Thier actions effectively managed to gain the support of the Indian embassy, and to put an end to the undeserved dilemmas they were facing.
In the article "Al Maya Group Plans Expansion," we can see that Al Maya, which was at one point part of the “Al Maya Lal’s Group,” is planning a large expansion project. By studying the article and Al Maya’s plans, we can easily relate a few of the well-know frameworks, such as Porter’s. However, the most evident one in this case is Hamel’s BCI Framework.
To start with, and under the core strategy principle, we can evidently find the business mission which would be the offering the “convenience of shopping” by having locations that are suitable for their customers and that save them the trouble of “driving to hypermarkets where parking is a problem.” As for the market scope, it is obvious that they are expanding it as they are opening new outlets in several malls and residential complexes. They are also opening the first BHS outlet in Poland which is considered a great expansion of scope. Their product scope however will remain the same as they are still in the retail industry and their products are not significantly changing. As for the strategic resources, Al Maya have some strategic assets such as their customer base and relationships, in addition to their “well-known at some point” name. Also, since they have been operating in the UAE for a long time, they have a good foundation in the country.
Porter’s framework can also be applied in the sense that there was a “threat of new entrants” at some point which was the dawn of hypermarkets in the region. This caused them to lose a portion of the market share which would be the customers that prefer lower prices over convenience. Nevertheless, they still managed to be profitable and carried on their usual operations.
To conclude, even though Al Maya has had its fair share of problems in the market, they are still one of the leading medium-sized retailers in the country. Furthermore, “all [their] supermarkets have witnessed a strong double-digit growth year on year,” which verifies that they are running on the “right track.”
Even though this article was published a few years ago, it can still be clearly applied to today’s business environment. In the article, “The New School,” we can see the effect of a poor job market on the way business schools compete and how some are modifying their programs to suit the requirements of today’s business situation and employer needs.
Students nowadays are jumping straight from their undergraduate to their graduate studies thinking it is the best alternative. They think that by getting the M.B.A their chances of getting a job are increased, and obviously they are. However, companies nowadays look at many other things besides what type of degree an applicant has. In the article we can see some of the questions that go through an employers mind regarding M.B.A holders. Employers think whether this person has the “aptitude to do well in the job” or not and if he received his M.B.A from top-tier business school. They also think if this person went to grad school out of desperation to get a job.
If we apply Barney’s framework on this situation, we can see that these students go after the M.B.A in order to stand out and differentiate themselves in the market. However, even though having a master’s degree is a valuable resource, I don’t think it is always a rare one. Many undergraduates nowadays are pursuing their master’s degree as soon as they graduate. Nevertheless, by doing so, and unless their program is linked to a real-life business (as in Babson), they will enter the job market with relatively low or no experience. That’s why many schools are adjusting their curriculums to suit today’s business requirements and help their students be “rare” in the job market. For example, Babson College's F. W. Olin Graduate School of Business has renovated its M.B.A. program in an attempt to adapt to the changing business environment, in which they “made arrangements with certain companies to enable [their] students to go right into their industry as a part of their first-year curriculum.”
A local example lies in AUS itself. Business students in AUS are required to finish an obligatory 6-week internship in order to graduate. I find this very helpful as I have experienced it myself and found it crucial in terms of building relationships, experience, and forming an idea of how companies really operate from within. Therefore, schools need to concentrate on providing superior education in order to bring up valuable and rare students that can make a difference in the business world and be indispensable assets to their organizations.
A couple of weeks ago, a Danish newspaper published debatable caricatures portraying the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This action resulted in a worldwide issue and lead Muslims from all over the world to boycott all forms of Danish products. The defense for the published cartoon was simply "freedom of expression," however, this cost the country's economy dearly.
Even though it is a political issue, we can clearly notice how Porter’s Forces come into play. For starters, we can visibly see a perfect example of buyers’ power in the market. By boycotting Danish products, Muslims and supporters of the issue from all over the world forced sales to drop, which greatly affected the Danish economy.
Hamel's Framework also applies to this issue. "Relationship dynamics" is evidently visible when we read about the supermarket that instantly refunded a customer’s return of a Danish product. This shows that the establishment respects the customer’s wishes and does not want to lose customer loyalty to the store; it wants to retain a "give and take" relationship with customers. Another customer interface point that is evident is "fulfillment and support.” By removing all Danish products and leaving the shelves empty, stores are showing customers that they are supporting this boycott of Danish products, which shows customers that this store really cares; it tells the customer: “We stand together with you." This also creates a sense of loyalty to the store and makes it stand out.
Furthermore, I think that Denmark should find a better excuse than "freedom of expression" since they crossed a very sensitive limit and created a worldwide concern that not only affected Muslim’s all over the world, but Denmark itself.
In Perry Wu's article, "Google is Destined to Fail in China," we can notice the difference between internet organizations in China and North America. In North America, each company "rules" a certain sector; "Google rules search, Yahoo rules the Web and Microsoft rules the operating system.” This in turn causes decreased competition between them in a way. However, internet companies in China fall under a different perspective. In China, "rival Internet companies have developed a symbiotic relationship," in which "Sohu, Sina, and Netease all provide pretty much the same services [as] they all developed along the same faddish track." This means, according to Porter, that since they all provide nearly the same products/services, there will be increased rivalry between them. Additionally, Porter also states that this situation could lead to a slow growth in the industry which increases the chances of local competitors' retaliation against newcomers who try to expand the industry. This case particularly happened with both Yahoo and Lycos when they tried to enter the Chinese market. Wu explains that Chinese internet companies prefer to act in cooperation, unlike other firms that act in competition in other countries. These [Chinese] companies have a mutual relationship in which they try to remain the same size and prevent rapid expansion. Another fact is that these Chinese companies are possibly sustained by the government, which could act as a barrier to entry for foreign companies.
