Questions
NATIONAL FARM AND GARDEN, INC., BACKGROUND (Everyone reads.) National Farm and Garden, Inc. (NFG) was incorporated...

NATIONAL FARM AND GARDEN, INC., BACKGROUND

(Everyone reads.)

National Farm and Garden, Inc. (NFG) was incorporated in Nebraska in 1935 and has been a leading supplier of farming equipment for more than sixty years. Over the last five years, however, demand for NFG’s flagship product, the Ultra Tiller, has been declining. To make matters worse, NFG’s market lead was overtaken by the competition for the first time two years ago.

Last year, NFG expanded its product line with the Turbo Tiller, a highly advertised and much anticipated upgrade to the Ultra Tiller. The product launch was timed to coincide with last year’s fall tilling season. Due to the timing of the release, the research and development process was shortened, and the manufacturing department was pressed to produce high numbers to meet anticipated demand. All responsible divisions approved the product launch and schedule. In order to release the product as scheduled, however, the manufacturing department was forced to employ the safety shield design from the Ultra Tiller. When attached, the shield protects the user from the tilling blades; however, it is necessary to remove the shield in order to clean the product. Because of differences between the Ultra and Turbo models, the Turbo’s shield is very difficult to reattach after cleaning and the process requires specialized tools. Owners can have the supplier make modifications on site or at the sales location, or they can leave the shield off and continue operation. All product documentation warns against operating the tiller without the shield, and the product itself has three distinct warning labels on it. Modifications are now available that allow for the shield to be removed and replaced quite easily, and these modifications are covered by the factory warranty. However, most owners have elected to operate the Turbo Tiller without the safety shield after its first cleaning.

Over the last year, a number of farm animals (chickens, cats, a dog, and two goats) have been killed by Turbo Tillers being operated without the guard. Two weeks ago, a seven-year-old Nebraska boy riding on the back of an unshielded tiller fell off. When the tiller caught the sleeve of his shirt, his arm was permanently mangled and required amputation. One of the child’s parents owns the local newspaper, which ran a story about the accident on the front page of the local paper the next day. NFG’s CEO has called an emergency meeting with the company’s divisional vice president, director of product development, director of manufacturing, director of sales, and vice president of public relations to discuss the situation and develop a plan of action.

Divisional Vice President

You are the divisional vice president and have been with the company for many years. Historically, you have not been a pushy individual and generally prefer to stay in the background. When there are major decisions to be made or crises to address, you are frequently not available. The CEO recently put you on a sixty-day action plan to improve your division’s output; failure to achieve this plan will result in your termination, even though you are just a few years shy of retirement. Therefore, you now find it necessary to satisfy not only your own objectives, but the CEO’s very high expectations as well. This has caused great turmoil within all divisions because you place increasing pressure on your subordinates.

As the divisional vice president, you are focused on coordinating all departments. You are responsible for output from the sales, manufacturing, and field service engineering departments. The research and development (R&D) department, which must sign off on all new products before they are approved for production, is not under your supervision.

Recently, you received a memorandum from the director of R&D outlining some potential problems with the development and testing of the Turbo Tiller. The memo was copied to you, the director of manufacturing, and the director of sales. You agreed with the director of manufacturing not to share the contents of the memo with your CEO because you felt that bringing this small concern to his attention would cause unnecessary problems for each division. Moreover, the CEO is known for his abrasive personality and has a history of yelling at bearers of bad news.

The CEO has called an all-hands emergency meeting at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. You are expected to bring all knowledge of this situation with you for discussion and creation of a comprehensive action plan.

Director of Product Development

You are the director of product development. Although you have a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Stanford University, you are originally from the inner-city area of Chicago, where you grew up in the school of “hard knocks.” From previous experience, you tend to be rather uncompromising about products that are engineered within your organization. Your engineering team has been very successful in the past, and you are quite proud of the many new successful products your department has developed.

You originally fast-tracked the Turbo Tiller product due to constant pressure, particularly from the director of sales. However, on further investigation, you have become concerned about the implementation of the product’s safety shield. Consequently, you recently sent a memorandum to the director of manufacturing, director of sales, and the divisional vice president outlining the fact that consumers could sue National Farm and Garden under the state’s strict liability doctrine, which holds manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the chain of distribution of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect, regardless of fault. Moreover, plaintiffs could cite the state’s concept of defect of manufacture when the manufacturer fails to (1) properly assemble a product, (2) properly test a product, and (3) adequately check the quality of the product component parts or materials used in manufacturing. You now believe that NFG has violated all three of these concepts of “defects of manufacture.”

Having received no response to this memo, you are contemplating whether to escalate the issue by going to the CEO. The only reason you have not already done so is the CEO’s historic temper when confronted with negative situations.

The CEO has called an all-hands emergency meeting at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. You are expected to bring all knowledge of this situation with you for discussion and creation of a comprehensive action plan.

Director of Manufacturing

You are the director of manufacturing. A graduate from the University of Alabama with a B.S. in industrial manufacturing, you have worked for NFG for twenty years. You are required to provide reports to top management on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. Top management creates the exact measures of performance that you provide; although you have a say in what these reports focus on, you often disagree with their exact focus. Your overall performance is evaluated based more on numbers of units produced than on quality. Despite this, you enjoy working for the company. You consider the group like family, and especially appreciate the effort the CEO has made to make you feel valued and supported.

You are aware of the difficulties that the Ultra Tiller guard poses when used on the Turbo Tiller. Due to the Turbo Tiller’s larger size, the guard is nearly impossible to replace after removal. Re-attachment of the shield requires a professional machine shop and additional assistance. However, with your knowledge of statistics, you know that, even without the shield in place, the chances of an animal or a person being injured by the Turbo Tiller are small. Thus, you agreed with the divisional vice president to bury a memo sent by the director of R&D stating related concerns. You both felt that the risks were small enough and that raising these concerns to your superiors would only cause headaches and paperwork. Furthermore, you need to stay on schedule in order to reach your volume goals if you are to earn your bonus.

You have also received several e-mails from the manager of the field service engineering department about reports of farmers operating the Turbo Tiller without the guard. When you requested statistical data regarding the number and location of occurrences and any related accidents, the field service engineering manager replied with field data indicating that more than 85 percent of all Turbo Tillers are eventually operated without the guard.

The CEO has called an all-hands emergency meeting at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. You are expected to bring all knowledge of this situation with you for discussion and creation of a comprehensive action plan.

Director of Sales

You are the director of sales and have been with NFG for more than ten years. You were recruited from a competing firm and have more than twenty-five years of sales experience in the industry. Because of sagging sales, you face extreme pressure from above to meet your numbers. However, you feel that sales forecasts have been set unrealistically. Furthermore, these aggressive forecasts create churning within your department as your sales staff consistently complains that their quotas are unrealistic. Although you are adamant that declining sales are industry and product offering issues, you are reluctant to raise these concerns to the CEO because of his history of anger directed at messengers bearing bad news. You have witnessed this phenomenon firsthand as the CEO literally screamed at a coworker who brought a problem to his attention. On the other hand, the CEO has promised you a new BMW if your department reaches its numbers this year. Of course, you enthusiastically promised to achieve these results.

The Turbo Tiller has been a much-anticipated addition to your stagnant product portfolio, but you were concerned that it would be delayed due to red tape and wrote daily e-mails to the R&D manager about getting it to market on a timely basis. You have received a memo from the R&D manager about some legal concerns over the Turbo Tiller. However, you feel that these concerns are manufacturing’s problem, not your department’s. Furthermore, because the director of manufacturing received a carbon copy of the memo, you are sure that the concerns will be addressed appropriately.

You have organized training on this product for your sales staff that included proper operating procedures and the dangers of standing within five feet of the tilling blades. In addition to these training sessions, you arranged a separate class on how to address and downplay these concerns with customers.

The CEO has called an all-hands emergency meeting at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. You are expected to bring all knowledge of this situation with you for discussion and creation of a comprehensive action plan.

Here is the question. please help me to answer this:

1) List the key stakeholders in this scenario.

2) What actions will you take with the family of the injured boy?

3) What actions will you take to move customers from the old tiller to the new version?

4) Are there any other actions you think that should be done?

In: Operations Management

Applied Economics - The Institutional Framework Who the Looting Ruins ‘Seventeen years of work is gone,’...

Applied Economics - The Institutional Framework

Who the Looting Ruins

‘Seventeen years of work is gone,’ said the owner of an Ecuadorean eatery.

By

The Editorial Board

June 4, 2020 7:37 pm ET

Luis Tamay is an immigrant with an Ecuadorean restaurant in Minneapolis. Zola Dias is the black owner of a clothing store in Atlanta. Sam Mabrouk has a denim shop in Columbus, Ohio. They’re only a few of the people whom intellectuals overlook whenever they rationalize rioting or say that property destruction isn’t violence.

“Seventeen years of work is gone,” Mr. Tamay told the Minneapolis Star Tribune after his restaurant, El Sabor Chuchi, burned to the ground. When the rioting began, he stood watch. But last Friday he obeyed curfew, believing that the National Guard would control the streets. Then on Facebook he saw video of his restaurant on fire. He told the newspaper he didn’t have insurance because it was too expensive.

Safia Munye, a Somali immigrant in Minneapolis, opened Mama Safia’s Kitchen in 2018 with money saved for retirement. When the pandemic arrived, NPRreported, she couldn’t afford both insurance and to pay her workers. She did the latter. Now the restaurant is wrecked, but she’s hardly the intended target of George Floyd protesters. “My heart is broken. My mind is broken,” she said. “I know I can’t come back from this. But this can be replaced. George’s life cannot. George’s life was more important.”

In Atlanta, Zola Dias lost more than $100,000 in goods from his clothing store, Attom. “I’m very emotional when I talk about it because I put my soul and life in this business,” he told the Atlanta Business Chronicle. “I just want to tell people to go and vote. That’s the only way to stop it and make a change.”

In San Francisco, Grace Jewelers was ransacked. “I can’t put a dollar estimate on it now,” Paul Zhou, the owner’s husband, told the Chronicle. “My wife is devastated.” In Dallas, Rodolfo Bianchi’s empanada shop was trashed. “It was emotionally heartbreaking to see all of your sweat, blood and tears just shattered,” he said. “It wasn’t anger, I was just broken.”

King’s Fashion in Philadelphia is a burned-out mess. “I don’t know what to do right now,” Helen Woo, a co-owner, told the Journal. “I built it up,” said her husband, Sung. “And it’s gone. My life is gone.” Masum Siddiquee lost about $200,000 of merchandise from his Philly store, MN Fashion and Jewelry. “I have no money right now,” he said.

“I lost everything in one night,” said Sam Mabrouk, counting an estimated $70,000 in product stolen from his clothing shop in Columbus, Ohio. “That was my savings from 11 years of working. That’s what hurts more than anything.” In Milwaukee, Katherine Mahmoud’s cellphone store was looted empty, which she said had nothing to do with what the Floyd protesters are fighting for. “I look just like them,” she told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Why?”

Some of these businesses are raising funds to help put the pieces back together. Some might have insurance to cover at least a portion of the losses. But others might not survive, and many companies will go bust quietly, without making the newspapers. Contrast this heartache with the cavalier attitude shown by at least some intellectuals, who seem to think that firebombing a local South American restaurant is merely the persuasive language of the unheard.


OPINION
COMMENTARY
Don’t Call Rioters ‘Protesters’

As in the 1960s, rioters aren’t looking to make a political point. They’re in it for the ‘fun and profit.’

By Barry Latzer

June 4, 2020 1:55 pm ET


Though thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of cities across the nation to express their outrage over the death of George Floyd, many hundreds have engaged in mob violence and looting. Mr. Floyd’s tragic death is, for them, a pretext for hooliganism.

We’ve seen this before, back in the bad old days of the late 1960s, when rioting became a near-everyday occurrence. Economists William J. Collins and Robert A. Margotallied an extraordinary 752 riots between 1964 and 1971. These disturbances involved 15,835 incidents of arson and caused 228 deaths, 12,741 injuries and 69,099 arrests. By an objective measure of severity, 130 of the 752 riots were considered “major,” 37 were labeled “massive” in their destructiveness.

At the time, black radicals and some white leftists saw the riots purely as political protest. Tom Hayden, the well-known New Left leader, described the violence as “a new stage in the development of Negro protest against racism, and as a logical outgrowth of the failure of the whole society to support racial equality.”

This analysis ignored the observations of witnesses on the scene. Thousands of rioters in the 1960s and early 1970s engaged in a joyful hooliganism—looting and destroying of property with wild abandon—that had no apparent political meaning. In the Detroit riot of July 1967, one of the era’s most lethal (43 people died in four nightmarish days of turmoil), the early stage of the riot was described by historian Sidney Fine as “a carnival atmosphere,” in which, as reported by a black minister eyewitness, participants exhibited “a gleefulness in throwing stuff and getting stuff out of the buildings.” A young black rioter told a newspaper reporter that he “really enjoyed” himself.

Analysts of urban rioting have identified a “Roman holiday” stage in which youths, in “a state of angry intoxication, taunt the police, burn stores with Molotov cocktails, and set the stage for looting.” This behavior is less political protest than, in Edward Banfield’s epigram of the day, “rioting mainly for fun and profit.” We are seeing some of the same looting and burning today, often treated by the media as mere exuberant protest.

Analyses of the riots that pinned blame on white bias and black victimization buttressed the protest theory. Such explanations received official sanction in the report of the influential National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders established by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, and headed by Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner. The Kerner Report famously declared that “white racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of World War II.” While not explicitly calling the riots a justified revolt by the victims of white racism, the Kerner Report certainly gave that impression.

Today we have the Black Lives Matter movement, which claims that police racism is the heart of the problem and calls for “defunding” police departments. Its apologists ignore the pressing need to protect black lives in communities where armed violent criminals daily threaten law-abiding residents.

A seeming oddity of the disturbances of the late ’60s and early ’70s is that they failed to materialize in many cities. An analysis of 673 municipalities with populations over 25,000 found that 75% of them experienced no riots. Even within riot-torn cities it is estimated that 85% or more of the black population took no part in them. Although they’ve gotten little or no media coverage I expect we will see comparable enclaves of tranquility today.

One possible explanation for why some cities explode with violence and others don’t is contagion theory: the tendency of people to do what their friends are doing. Once the rocks and bottles start flying in a neighborhood, it becomes tempting to join in. Youths, who played a major role in the turbulence, are particularly susceptible to peer influence. Consequently, when teenagers and young men begin rampaging, the situation often quickly escalates. No one wants to miss the party. As more young people join in, what begins as a manageable event can rapidly spiral out of control.

Closely related to the contagion theory is the threshold—or, more popularly, the “tipping point”—hypothesis. Once a certain number of rioters have become engaged, this view holds, those who had preferred to stay on the sidelines will be motivated to jump in. While imitation plays its part here too, the size of the event in itself becomes the crucial determinant of the ultimate magnitude of the riot.

Of course, a peaceful situation can quickly descend into mayhem in the presence of provocateurs. Back in the ’60s, a new generation of young black militants, such as Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, traveled around the country making incendiary speeches, unabashedly endorsing black revolution. Today we have antifa and various anarchist groups using social media and encrypted messages to organize the violence effectively but anonymously.

Certainly, there are those who honestly believe that America’s police are racist and in need of fundamental reforms. They are mistaken, but they should have ample opportunity to express their views peacefully. There should be no confusing such protesters, however, with looters, arsonists and those who would kill police officers. They deserve a different name: criminals.

Mr. Latzer is a professor emeritus at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of “The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America.”

Discuss the opportunity costs

In: Economics

Coca-Cola 2.1. Coca-Cola’s profile Coca-Cola started its business in 1886 as a local soda producer in...


Coca-Cola
2.1. Coca-Cola’s profile
Coca-Cola started its business in 1886 as a local soda producer in Atlanta, Georgia (US) selling about nine beverages per day. By the 1920s, the company had begun expanding internationally, selling its products first in the Caribbean and Canadian markets and then moving in consecutive decades to Asia, Europe, South America and the Soviet Union. By the end of the 20th century, the company was selling its products in almost every country in the world. In 2005 it became the largest manufacturer, distributor and marketer of non-alcoholic beverages and syrups in the world. Coca-Cola is a publicly-held company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
2.2. Coca-Cola’s CSR policies and reporting
In 2007 Coca-Cola launched its sustainability framework Live Positively embedded in the system at all levels, from production and packaging to distribution. The company’s CSR policy Live Positively establishes seven core areas where the company sets itself measurable goals to
improve the business’ sustainability practices. The core areas are beverage benefits, active healthy living, the community, energy and climate, sustainable packaging, water stewardship and the workplace.
Coca-Cola has a Code of Business Conduct which aims at providing guidelines to its employees on –amongst other things – competition issues and anti-corruption. The company has adopted international CSR guidelines such as Global Compact and Ruggie’s Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework (Ruggie’s Framework), but these guidelines do not seem to be integrated into the Code of Business. However, these CSR initiatives are included in other activities or policies of the company. For instance, the UN Global Compact principles are cross- referenced in the company’s annual Sustainability Reviews and Ruggie’s Framework is partly adopted in the company’s ‘Human Right Statement’. After the conflict in India, in 2007 Coca- Cola formed a partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)21 and became a member of the CEO Water Mandate, as water is one of the company’s main concerns.
Every year Coca-Cola publishes a directors’ report denominated ‘The Coca-Cola Company Annual Report’; the last one was published in March 2011 and comprises the company’s activities during 2010.22 In this report there is a small section dedicated to CSR and it includes a brief description of the initiatives in community development and water preservation that the company has developed. Since 2001, Coca-Cola also annually publishes a separate report devoted to CSR called ‘The Coca-Cola Company Sustainability Review’. These reviews, which are published every two years, are verified and assured by a third party, the sustainability rating firm FIRA Sustainability Ltd. This verification provides ‘moderate assurance’ on the reliability of the information reported by Coca-Cola. Both reports – the annual company review and the sustainability reports – are elaborated based on the GRI G3 guidelines, which were adopted by the company in 2001. Due to its relevance to Coca-Cola’s business, the company also annually reports on the progress of the water stewardship programme’s targets.
2.3. Coca-Cola’s conflicts
Several campaigns and demonstrations followed the publication of a report issued by the Indian NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2003. The report provided evidence of the presence of pesticides, to a level exceeding European standards, in a sample of a dozen Coca- Cola and PepsiCo beverages sold in India. With that evidence at hand, the CSE called on the Indian government to implement legally enforceable water standards. The report gained ample public and media attention, resulting in almost immediate effects on Coca-Cola revenues.
The main allegations made by the NGO against Coca-Cola were that it sold products containing unacceptable levels of pesticides, it extracted large amounts of groundwater and it had polluted water sources. These conflicts will be discussed under 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
2.3.1. The presence of pesticides
Regarding the allegation about Coca-Cola beverages containing high levels of pesticide residues, the Indian government undertook various investigations. The government set up a Joint Committee to carry out its own tests on the beverages. The tests also found the presence of pesticides that failed to meet European standards, but they were still considered safe under local standards. Therefore, it was concluded that Coca-Cola had not violated any national laws. However, the Indian government acknowledged the need to adopt appropriate and enforceable standards for carbonated beverages.
In 2006, after almost three years of ongoing allegations, the CSE published its second test on Coca-Cola drinks, also resulting in a high content of pesticide residues (24 times higher than European Union standards, which were proposed by the Bureau of Indian Standards to be implemented in India as well). CSE published this test to prove that nothing had changed, alleging that the stricter standards for carbonated drinks and other beverages had either been

lost in committees or blocked by powerful interests in the government. Finally, in 2008 an independent study undertaken by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) ended the long- standing allegations by concluding that the water used in Coca-Cola in India is free of pesticides. However, because the institute did not test the final product, other ingredients could have contained pesticides.
2.3.2. Water pollution and the over-extraction of groundwater.
Coca-Cola was also accused of causing water shortages in – among other areas – the community of Plachimada in Kerala, southern India. In addition, Coca-Cola was accused of water pollution by discharging wastewater into fields and rivers surrounding Coca-Cola’s plants in the same community. Groundwater and soil were polluted to an extent that Indian public health authorities saw the need to post signs around wells and hand pumps advising the community that the water was unfit for human consumption.
In 2000, the company established its production operations in Plachimada. Local people claimed that they started experiencing water scarcity soon after the operations began. The state government initiated proceedings against Coca-Cola in 2003, and soon after that the High Court of Kerala prohibited Coca-Cola from over-extracting groundwater. By 2004 the company had suspended its production operations, while it attempted to renew its licence to operate. Coca- Cola argued that patterns of decreasing rainfall were the main cause of the draught conditions experienced in the area. After a long judicial procedure and ongoing demonstrations, the company succeeded in obtaining the licence renewal to resume its operations. In 2006 Coca- Cola’s successful re-establishment of operations was reversed when the government of Kerala banned the manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola products in Kerala on the ground that it was unsafe due to its high content of pesticides. However, the ban did not last for long and later that same year the High Court of India overturned Kerala’s Court decision. More recently, in March 2010, a state government panel recommended fining Coca-Cola’s Indian subsidiary a total of $47 million because of the damage caused to the water and soil in Kerala. Also, a special committee in charge of looking into claims by community members affected by the water pollution was set up.
The long legal procedures against the Indian government that Coca-Cola had to face were not the only consequence of the conflict. The brand suffered a great loss of consumer trust and reputational damage in India and abroad. In India there was an overall sales drop of 40% within two weeks after the release of the 2003 CSE report. The impact in annual sales was a decline of 15% in overall sales in 2003– in comparison to prior annual growth rates of 25-30%. This highly publicised conflict in India also caught the attention of consumers in the US. After a series of demonstrations by students who joined two activist groups in the US, ten American universities temporarily stopped selling Coca-Cola products at their campus facilities.
2.4. Coca-Cola’s CSR policies post-conflicts
Two years before the water conflict in India in 2003, Coca-Cola adopted the GRI Guidelines and started reporting on sustainability. By 2003, the company had already experienced a few CSR- related conflicts in other parts of the world. However, none of them had the grave consequence of a loss of trust in the company and its products by consumers and the public in general.
According to Pirson and Malhotra, the main reason why this controversy ended so badly for Coca-Cola lies in its response to the problem. Coca-Cola denied having produced beverages containing Elevated levels of pesticides, as well as having over-exploited and polluted water resources. By denying all claims and trying to prove its integrity, instead of demonstrating concern towards the situation, Coca-Cola failed to regain consumers’ trust. The Indian population viewed Coca-Cola as a corporate villain who cared more about profits than public

health. In comparison, previous conflicts experienced by the company in the US and Belgium were better handled because it included stakeholder engagement in its strategy.
It appears that the company became aware of its mistake after the controversy had been ongoing for a couple of years. In 2008 Jeff Seabright, Coca-Cola’s vice president of environment and water resources, recognized that the company had not adequately handled the controversy. He acknowledged that local communities’ perception of their operation matters, and that for the company ‘(...) having goodwill in the community is an important thing’.
Although Coca-Cola still denies most of the allegations, the reputational damage experienced after the controversy in India pushed Coca-Cola to take damage-control measures. Those measures at first consisted of statements to confirm Coca-Cola’s integrity. For example, Coca-Cola dedicated a page in the Corporate Responsibility Review of 2006 to address the controversy. The statement consisted mainly of providing information supporting its good practices and water management of its operations in India. But this statement did little to combat the declining sales and increasing losses exceeding investments. Coca-Cola gradually changed its strategy to include damage-control measures that addressed the Indian communities’ grievances. In 2008 the company published its first environmental performance report on operations in India, which covered activities from 2004 to 2007.53 It also created the Coca-Cola India Foundation, Anandana, which works with local communities and NGOs to address local water problems. But perhaps the most outstanding change of strategy by Coca-Cola consisted of launching various community water projects in India. An example is the rainwater harvesting project, where Coca-Cola’s operations partnered with the Central Ground Water Authority, the State Ground Water Boards, NGOs and communities to address water scarcity and depleting groundwater levels through rainwater harvesting techniques across 17 states in India. These techniques consist mainly of collecting and storing rainwater while preventing its evaporation and runoff for its efficient utilisation and conservation. The idea behind this is to capture large quantities of good quality water that could otherwise go to waste. By returning to the ecosystem the water used in its operations in India through water harvesting, the company expected that this project could eventually turn the company into a ‘net zero’ user of groundwater by 2009.55 In the 2012 Water Stewardship and Replenish Report, Coca-Cola stated that its operations in India have ‘achieved full balance between groundwater used in beverage production and that replenished to nature and communities – ahead of the global target’.
It appears that the controversy in India was a learning experience for the company, and that it motivated the company to adopt a more proactive CSR policy on a global scale that focuses on water management. In June 2007, Coca-Cola implemented a water stewardship programme and committed itself to reduce its operational water footprint and to offset the water used in the Company’s products through locally relevant projects. To achieve those commitments Coca-Cola established three measurable objectives:
(1) Reducing water use by improving water efficiency by 20% over 2004 levels by 2012. The latest data available from 2010 shows a 16% improvement over the 2004 baseline.
(2) Recycling water through wastewater treatment and returning all water used in manufacturing processes to the environment at a level that supports aquatic life and agriculture by the end of 2010. By September 2011, the progress observed concerning this target was 96%.59
(3) Replenishing water used by offsetting the litres of water used in finished beverages by 2020 through local projects that support communities and nature (i.e. watershed protection and rainwater harvesting). Currently, Coca-Cola reports that it holds a global portfolio of 386 community water partnerships or community-based replenish projects. By 2011, about 35% of the water used in finished beverages was replenished.
It is noteworthy that Coca-Cola publishes, in addition and separate to the sustainability reports, an annual water report. In these reports the company publishes assessments of and the

progress in its water initiatives. Some of the assessments are made by the Global Environment & Technology Foundation, an American NGO experienced in facilitating the creation of public- private partnerships.
Also, in 2007, Coca-Cola entered into a partnership with WWF. Its core objectives are increasing understanding on watersheds and water cycles to improve Coca-Cola’s water usage, working with local communities in various locations worldwide, and developing a common framework to preserve water sources. Finally, and also in the same year, the company became a member of the public-private initiative CEO Water Mandate, which is a public-private initiative that assists companies in the development, implementation and disclosure of water sustainability policies and practices.
ELEMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED
-Sustainability
-Accountability
-Transparency
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
-What are the principles od CSR involved in this case?
-What are the environmental issues and their effects and implications? -Should CSR be a voluntary Activity?
-What is the relation between CSR and profit?

In: Economics

Read the following case, and fill out the table below based on the case: Horizon Insurance...

Read the following case, and fill out the table below based on the case:

Horizon Insurance (HI) was a full-service regional insurance agency that has done all the printing and publishing of its own promotional brochures, newsletters, informational pamphlets, and required regulatory reports. Linda Wolfe, the business manager of the agency, had for some time thought that the firm might save money and get equally good services by contracting the publishing work G-Art Inc. She asked G-Art Inc. to give her a quote at the same time she asked Bob Myer her controller to prepare an up-to-date statement of the cost of operating Horizon’s publishing department.

Within a few days, the quote from G-Art Inc. arrived. The firm was prepared to provide all the required publications work for $ 410,000 a year with the contract running a guaranteed term of 4 years with annual renewals thereafter. If the estimated number or assumed mix of publications changed in any given year beyond the baseline planning estimates, the contract price would be adjusted accordingly. Wolfe compared G-Art’s quote with the internal cost figures prepared by Myer:

Table 1; Annual cost of operating HI’s publications department: Myer’s figures.

Materials                                                                                                             $40,000

Labor                                                                                                                 $290,000

Department overhead

Manager’s salary                                                                                            $48,000                                  

Allocated cost of office space                                  $10,000

Depreciation of equipment                                       $32,500

Other expenses (travel, education, ect.)               $25,000

                                                                                                                             $115,500

                                                                                                                            $445,500

Share of company administrative overhead                                         $30,000

Total cost of department for year                                                          $475,000

Wolfe’s initial conclusion was to close Horizon’s publications department and immediately sign the contact offered by G-Art. However, she felt it prudent to give the manager of the department, George Richards, an opportunity to question that tentative conclusion. She called him in and put the facts before him, while at the same time making it clear that Richards’ own job at the agency was not in jeopardy.

Richard came up with the following to keep in mind before his department was closed:

For instance, what will you do with the customed graphic design and printing equipment? It cost $260,000 four years ago, but you’d be lucky if you got $80,000 for it now, even though we had planned on using it for another four years at least. Andthen there is the sizable supply of print materials that includes a lot of specialized ink, specialty card stock, paper, envelopes ect. We bought the custom supplies a year ago when we were pretty flush with cash. At that time it cost us about 125,000 and at the rate we are using it now, it will last us another four years. We used up about one-fifth of it last year. As best as I an tell, Myer’s figure of $40,000 for materials includes about $25,000 for these customized sipplies and $15,000 for generic supplies we use on a regular basis. If we were to buy these custom supplies today it would probably cost us 110% of what we paid for it. But if we try to sell it, we would probably get only 60% of what we paid for it.

Wolf thought that Myer ought to be present during this discussion. She called him in and put Richard’s points to him. Myer said:

If we are going to have all of this talk about “what will happen if” don’t forget the problem of space we’re faced with. We’re paying 12,000 a year in outside office space. If we close Richard’s department we could use of the freed-up space as office space and not need to rent it on the outside.

Wolfe replied:

That’s a good point, though I must say I’m a bit worried about the people if we close the publications department. I don’t think we can find room for any of them elsewhere in the firm. I could see whether G-rt can take any of them, but some of them are getting odler. There’s Walters and Hines, for example. They’ve been with us since they left school 40 years ago, and I think their contract requires us to give them a total severance payoff of about $60,000 each, payable in equal amounts over four years.

Richards showed some relief at this. “ But I still don’t like Myer’s figures” he said. “What about the $30,000 for general administrative overhead. You surely don’t expect to fire anyone in the corporate office if Im closed, do you?

“Probably not” said Myer, but someone has to pay for those costs. We can’t ignore them when we look at an individual department, because fi we do that with each department in turn, we will convince ourselves that accountants, laywers, vice presidents, and the like don’t’ have to be paid for. And they do, believe me”

Myer’s figures

Total cost inside

Total cost with G-Art Contract

Savings (higher cost) contracting outside

Material: Generic supplies

$15,000

                  Custom supplies

$25,000

Labor:       Wages

$290,000

                  Severance

Overhead: Manger’s Salary

$48,000

                    Office (internal)

$10,000

                    Office rental

                 Equipment deprec.

$32,500

                  Other

$25,000

Share of general and administrative

$30,000

Total

475,000

G-Art Contract

410,000

Net Difference

65,500

Clarification: In the fact set, Custom Supplies are expected to sell for 60% of what the company paid for them. Assume (to make numbers cleaner), that this is 60% of their 'current' book value of $100,000 (derived from the fact set), not the original cost.

Question: Fill out the table above and determine the question below:

What is the annual difference in expense (accounting cost) if Horizon Insurance outsources to G-Art? Do not consider the gain or loss from the sale of special materials or equipment in this calculation. It might be helpful to use the worksheet provided in the case.

In: Accounting

The Sorry Side Of Sears BY JOHN MCCORMICK ON 2/21/99 AT 7:00 PM EST IT'S NOT...

The Sorry Side Of Sears

BY JOHN MCCORMICK ON 2/21/99 AT 7:00 PM EST

IT'S NOT EASY TO DIGEST A DISASTER at 8:30 a.m. on a Sunday. Sitting with his top executives at a conference table in Chicago on a spring morning in 1997, Arthur C. Martinez was in shock. His lawyers used overhead slides to explain how employees at Sears, Roebuck and Co.--the once moribund company he'd worked so hard to revive--had secretly violated federal law for a decade. Their actions, which had been exposed by a bankruptcy judge in Boston, were about to erupt in a nationwide scandal. Already the U.S. Justice Department was weighing not just civil penalties, but criminal prosecution. Worse, this wasn't a rogue operation, or an honest misinterpretation of the law: Sears appeared to have been violating the rights of some credit-card holders systematically and intentionally. The company, the lawyers were suggesting, may even have put the illegal practice in its procedures manual. How could such wrongdoing have gotten started, and how could it have gone unchecked for years? Martinez wanted to know. ""Not one phone call about this? Ever?'' he demanded. It was, says one participant in the meeting, ""a sickening moment.''

There would be many more sickening moments as Sears scrambled to contain the legal, financial and public-relations fallout from its lapse. Last week, after a 22-month FBI investigation, a Sears subsidiary agreed to plead guilty to a criminal charge of bankruptcy fraud--and to pay the government a stunning $60 million, the largest such fine in U.S. history. A federal judge still must approve the plea bargain. NEWSWEEK'S lengthy investigation of the scandal reveals the inside story of the turmoil at Sears during those intervening months. It shows how Sears struggled, first to assess the scope of its problem, and ultimately to understand what in its management structure, executive style or corporate culture had led it to commit the most serious ethical breach in its history.

It all began with what's known around federal bankruptcy court in Boston as the letter that cost Sears a half-billion dollars. Scrawling on a yellow legal pad in November 1996, a disabled security guard named Francis Latanowich begged to reopen his bankruptcy case. Although Judge Carol Kenner had wiped out his debts, Latanowich had agreed to repay Sears the $1,161 he owed for a TV, a car battery and other goods. But the monthly payment, he wrote, ""is keeping food off the table for my kids.''

Sears, it turned out, had mailed Latanowich an offer. In return for $28 a month on his account, it wouldn't repossess the goods he'd bought with a Sears charge card before he went bankrupt. Urging debtors to sign such deals, called reaffirmations, is legal, and roughly a third of bankrupts do so. But many judges view them as sucker deals that keep people from getting a fresh start. And every signed reaffirmation must be filed with the court so a judge can review whether the debtor can handle the new payment. Sears hadn't filed this one. Kenner wanted to know why.

At a Jan. 29, 1997, hearing, a Boston attorney working for Sears served up a convoluted technical excuse for not filing. Kenner's response: ""Baloney.'' There were hints from prior cases that Sears, both praised and feared nationwide as the most aggressive pursuer of reaffirmations, wasn't filing many of them with the court. If true, the company was using unenforceable agreements to collect debts that legally no longer existed. Kenner pushed for a list of such cases. Sears's response, delivered reluctantly in mid-March by a credit manager, was a shocker: since 1995 Sears apparently had ignored the law 2,733 times in Massachusetts alone.

It wasn't hard to conjure up a likely motive. With bankruptcies nationwide skyrocketing from 780,000 in 1994 to 1.3 million last year, many companies are awash in bad debts. Getting debtors to sign reaffs is a way to reclaim some of the losses. And not filing them keeps nosy judges from nixing many of those side deals. ""The worst thing about what Sears has done is that they're kicking the little guy when he's down--2,733 times,'' Kenner steamed. ""Frankly, I think their actions have been predatory. They've shown a wholesale disregard for the Bankruptcy Code, and sanctions will be stiff.''

The scandal couldn't have hit Sears at a more inopportune time. Martinez, an outgoing Brooklyn native who'd come to Sears from Saks Fifth Avenue in 1992, had rescued the huge retailer from years of drift. He'd killed off the old Sears catalog, cut 50,000 employees and promoted ""the softer side of Sears'' with a push into high-profit apparel lines. The ink was barely dry on a Barron's profile that approvingly discussed how Sears also cut losses by pursuing bad debts. Fortune was headed to press with a similar piece about the resurgence at Sears, where profits were rising 20 percent a year.

Word of a livid judge in Boston reached Michael Levin, then head of Sears's law department, on March 27. Like Martinez and other top execs at Prairie Stone, the company's glassy headquarters outside Chicago, Levin says he'd known nothing about Sears's misconduct; he had joined just 15 months earlier. But he quickly discovered that the company had been breaking the law in federal bankruptcy courts across the United States. Eventually Sears would determine it had improperly collected $110 million from 187,000 consumers. Early on Martinez asked Levin if Sears had ever pleaded guilty to a crime. The answer was no. ""I said to myself, "The company's 111 years old, and I'm the guy in the chair when we plead guilty to a criminal offense','' Martinez says. ""Wonderful.''

At 4:15 p.m. on April 9, a cryptic e-mail message flashed onto screens at Prairie Stone. It summoned Sears's top 200 executives--the so-called Phoenix Team--to an urgent meeting at 8 the next morning. As Martinez explained Sears's serious breach of law, says one attendee, ""Arthur was not angry, but very sad.'' The costs, he said, were incalculable. ""We've rebuilt our customers' trust and confidence in this company brick by brick,'' he said, ""and now all of that has been bulldozed.''

It was a devastating moment for the Phoenix Team. ""I was watching the veterans, the people who've been through so much,'' says one executive. ""There was no movement, no expression, no shuffling of feet. They were heartbroken.'' As the meeting ended, Martinez told every executive to spend the next half hour at his or her desk. Do nothing, he said, but think about your own operation. ""Not just to identify additional exposure,'' he says, ""but to fundamentally rethink--Is what I do, the direction I give, the body language I use, creating an environment where something like this could happen? Is my message, "Make the numbers at any cost'?''

Martinez has asked himself the same question. Sears had suffered a black eye before he arrived, when auto-repair employees in California were caught hiking their own commissions by selling customers products they didn't need. Martinez is proud of the ethics office and other integrity initiatives he launched after he joined Sears. ""We tried to set a tone at the top,'' he says. But in the early 1990s Martinez also oversaw the extension of credit cards to 17 million new customers. That's about 5 million more than Sears might routinely have added. Credit by itself is big business: last year the company earned 50 percent of its operating income from credit, including charge cards held by more than half of all U.S. households. The problem, Martinez admits, is that too many of those new cardholders barely qualified. So, in its zeal to attract new business, Sears became a lender to its riskiest customers. As the number of bankruptcies nationwide mushroomed, so did the number of unpaid accounts at Sears: by 1997 more than one third of all personal bankruptcies in the United States included Sears as a creditor.

Any company that dependent on income from its credit cards must aggressively pursue bad debts, and Sears isn't the only retailer to have crossed the line. Bankruptcy experts estimate that creditors historically haven't filed perhaps one third of all reaffirmations that bankrupt Americans sign. Since the Sears case broke, Federated Department Stores (which owns Macy's and Bloomingdale's), May (Filene's), G.E. Capital (Montgomery Ward) and Discover card have settled with debtors. But Martinez saw the scandal as more disturbing than a credit tactic run amok. Several weeks after the crisis erupted he probed for deeper cultural flaws during a Saturday retreat with his Phoenix Team. ""Maybe all the bullshit that's being written about how we've changed values and culture is just that,'' he told his executives. ""What allowed this thing to go unnoticed, untouched and unreported for so long?'' Talking in small groups, the managers agreed that Sears's transformation from an exhausted, defeatist bureaucracy into an aggressive, can-do company had an unanticipated consequence: they hated to send bad news back up to the top. That's a common pathology. Managers aren't trained to expose problems, says James Schrager, a business ethicist at the University of Chicago. ""They're trained to make their goals or heads will roll.'' CEOs can't control every employee's actions, Schrager says. They can, however, emphasize that workers may lose their jobs for failing to report violations--but never for telling management the truth.

Still, Sears's problem wasn't just culture. It was policy. To investigate the roots of its misconduct, Sears hired law firms in Chicago, New York, Detroit and Boston to interview 400 people inside and outside the company. Based on that probe, Martinez and Levin have given NEWSWEEK an explanation never aired in public or in court. They say the problem traces to a Sears lawyer working in a field office in 1985. Sears will not identify the lawyer. ""This fellow had gone to a seminar on bankruptcy,'' Levin says. ""Out of that, this idea was triggered. I don't believe the lawyer thought there was a criminal act involved.'' The practice of not filing all reaffs was later rolled out nationwide.

The next obvious question is why nobody at Sears ever stopped such a serious breach of law. Levin has told NEWSWEEK there were clues: at least one outside law firm had told someone at Sears that the company's policy was questionable. But word of that alert--which might have triggered a broader inquiry at Sears--never worked its way up through the company. ""There should have been a review,'' Levin says. ""Somebody in the law department should have stood up and said, "This is the wrong thing to do'.'' Martinez thinks he knows why nobody blew the whistle. ""I'm sure our people would say, "These goddamn deadbeats; they took the merchandise and they didn't pay for it, and they filed for bankruptcy. I'm going to find a way to protect my company.' That's wrongheaded, but it's an accurate reflection of the culture.'' Another discovery was even more disturbing: Sears's own procedures manual--actually, a database available to every computer user--was part of the problem. ""As a reader, you'd conclude that there are some circumstances--which you can't define with precision--when [reaffirmations] wouldn't be filed,'' Levin says.

The damaging discovery inside its own procedures manual helped cement Sears's resolve: get this over quickly, pay restitution in full, avoid years of litigation and bad press. Those who attended the first crisis meetings say Martinez insisted from the very beginning that Sears come clean. ""We had to admit to failure here and commit to repaying people the money we'd inappropriately collected,'' he says. ""We said to ourselves, "We can't go into court and defend any of our practices'.'' At Levin's suggestion, Sears made a startling admission: that its own ""flawed legal judgment'' was to blame for the misconduct.

With Kenner watching closely, Sears began a hunt for every case of wrongdoing back through 1992. (Before that records were fuzzy.) The raw numbers were daunting. In the prior five years 510,000 Americans had signed reaffirmations pledging to pay Sears debts that totaled $412 million. But figuring out which agreements hadn't been submitted to judges was a massive project. Reaff data retrievable by computer went back only eight months. Digging for clues, 60 computer and audit specialists searched records of 110 million Sears credit accounts. More workers scoured files in federal courts and Sears credit offices nationwide. So many documents flowed into a windowless workroom at Prairie Stone that one worried auditor performed weight calculations to see if the floor would collapse.

The search cost $14 million, but Sears's eagerness to find and repay the people it had wronged won high marks from Justice and other combatants in the case. ""Usually we have two years of knock-down, drag-out before we get down to business,'' says John Roddy, a Boston attorney for the debtors. ""This is the only case I've ever filed where I didn't get a pure stonewall response.'' A few of those affected stepped forward to identify themselves. Several dozen people wrote the company to say they didn't deserve refunds, and planned to keep paying off their debts. One man called to say that he'd declared bankruptcy twice, under the names Jeff and Geoff; he wanted to make sure he got both refunds. Another man called on his mobile phone while cruising past Prairie Stone on Interstate 90. Would it be possible, he asked, to drop by and pick up a refund?

When the last lawyer's bill arrives, the scandal will have cost Sears close to $475 million. Almost $300 million has gone to the wronged debtors, both as refunds (plus interest) of about $1.40 for every $1 Sears improperly collected, and as forgiveness of remaining debt for whatever items they'd purchased. The balance: the pending federal fine, a separate penalty paid to the 50 states and the cost of settling a lawsuit brought by a group of shareholders who claimed that the scandal had hurt the price of their stock. Sources outside Sears say six managers have been forced out of their jobs. (Levin also has departed for unrelated reasons.)

Last week's plea bargain--which Sears swallowed in order to avoid a criminal trial--should let the company dispose of the scandal for good. Martinez says he's pleased that ""the end is clearly in sight.'' He's got other things to worry about. His turnaround has lost some momentum, and Sears stock is languishing near its 52-week low. Martinez is now launching his ""Second Revolution,'' a plan to re-energize the company with, among other things, new merchandise and more store remodelings. Pressing as those challenges are, it's a relief for Martinez--and everyone else at Prairie Stone--to get back to business.

PROFIT--AND LOSS Sears makes much of its profits from credit cards. It pushed hard to expand that business, and ended up with less credit-worthy customers.

63 million households have Sears credit cards. In the last 12 months, 32 million of those accounts were active.

More than one third of all personal bankruptcies in 1997 included Sears as a creditor who hadn't been paid.




QUESTION:

1. Give a synopsis of this case and describe/explain why this is an ethical issue

2. What are some of the legal and ethical issues involved? Explain why the conduct in the case could be right or wrong

3. What are the implications for Managers and the Businesses?


In: Economics

It is common practice in America for companies to take out corporate-owned life insurance policies on...

It is common practice in America for companies to take out corporate-owned life insurance policies on their leaders and senior management, so that the company can offset the cost of replacing them if they die. However, some companies have begun to extend this practice to their low-level employees, which have become known as “dead peasant” policies. Although profitable for the business, it is often the case that the families of these low-level employees are not aware that this step has been taken and the practice has been outlawed in some states. Is this practice ethical for all employees? Or just top corporate leaders?

Case

Insuring the lives of top executives is common practice in corporate America. The death of a CEO or CFO can put the future of the company at risk; replacing these individuals can be costly. Large companies often take out life insurance policies, called corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) polices, on their leaders to help offset these expenses. Some firms extend their COLI policies to cover low-level employees. These policies, sometimes referred to as “dead peasant” or “dead janitor” insurance, are taken out on rank-and-file workers like convenience store clerks, electrical linemen, and cake decorators. The company pays the premiums and receives the death benefits when the employee dies. Often, workers and their surviving family members do not know that these policies exist, prompting one attorney to call these policies corporate America's “dirty little secret” (Mason, 2002). In a case featured in the film Capitalism: A Love Story, the widow of an Amegy bank project manager discovered that the bank had received a US$3.8 million payout after her husband's death. Her husband's salary, before the bank fired him, was US$70,000. (She later sued Amegy and settled for an undisclosed sum.) In another instance, Wal-Mart collected US$381,000 after the death of an employee but didn't reveal that fact to his spouse. Dead peasant policies can be profitable. The lump sum paid to the company is tax free, and in the past, the cost of the premiums could also be written off. Press reports name Proctor & Gamble, AT&T, Walt Disney, Portland General Electric, and Nestlé as corporations carrying COLI policies on low-level workers. At one time, as many as one quarter of the Fortune 500 purchased such policies, covering as many as 5–6 million workers. However, fewer companies took out such insurance after the tax laws were tightened. Wal-Mart says it discontinued its program when the tax law changed and after it lost several lawsuits. Nonetheless, policies purchased earlier may still be in place at a number of firms. Rules on dead peasant policies vary between states. Some jurisdictions outlaw this type of insurance, requiring that companies demonstrate that they have an “insurable interest” (would suffer significant loss of income) in the individual covered by the policy. Others require that employees give their consent before such insurance can be put in force. Corporations defend their use of dead peasant policies by claiming that the insurance helps defray the expenses of providing benefits for executives and of providing health insurance for employees and retirees. Critics scoff at this explanation, noting that insurance payout monies are generally mingled with general revenue. They point out that taking out such policies without the knowledge or consent of employees is disrespectful and treats workers as resources, not as human beings. Such insurance also sets up a potentially deadly conflict of interest. Employers, who are in charge of safety, now have a financial stake in the early death of employees. As one surviving spouse asked, “What incentive is there for a safe work environment if companies can do this?” (Roesler, 2003).

Discussion Questions

1.Do you think it is ethical to insure top corporate leaders? What criteria should be used in determining who should be covered?

2.Would you agree to a company-owned insurance policy on your life if it was required for employment?

3.What would Immanuel Kant say about dead peasant policies?

4.Are dead peasant policies unjust?

5.Do you think that employers have a conflict of interest if they hold life insurance policies on their employees? Why or why not?

6.Are dead peasant policies ethical if (a) workers are notified of their existence; (b) if the proceeds go towards supporting employee benefits?

7.Would you support a total ban on dead peasant policies? Why or why not?

In: Operations Management

Case Study 4.4 A New work Ethic? YOU WOULD THINK THAT EMPLOYEES WOULD do something if...

Case Study 4.4

A New work Ethic?

YOU WOULD THINK THAT EMPLOYEES WOULD do something if they discovered that a customer had died on the premises. But that’s not necessarily so, according to the Associated Press, which reported that police discovered the body of a trucker in a tractor trailer rig that had sat—with its engine running—in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant for nine days. Employees swept the parking lot around the truck but ignored the situation for over a week until the stench got so bad that someone finally called the police. That lack of response doesn’t surprise James Sheehy, a human resources manager in Houston, who spent his summer vacation working undercover at a fast-food restaurant owned by a relative.78 Introduced to coworkers as a management trainee from another franchise location who was being brought in to learn the ropes, Sheehy was initially viewed with some suspicion, but by the third day the group had accepted him as just another employee. Sheehy started out as a maintenance person and gradually rotated through various cooking and cleaning assign- ments before ending up as a cashier behind the front counter. Most of Sheehy’s fellow employees were teenagers and col- lege students who were home for the summer and earning addi- tional spending money. Almost half came from upper-income families and the rest from middle-income neighborhoods. More than half were women, and a third were minorities. What Sheehy reports is a whole generation of workers with a frightening new work ethic: contempt for customers, indifference to quality and service, unrealistic expectations about the world of work, and a get-away-with-what-you-can attitude. Surveys show that employee theft is on the rise throughout the business world.79 Sheehy’s experience was in line with this. He writes that the basic work ethic at his place of employ- ment was a type of gamesmanship that focused on milking the place dry. Theft was rampant, and younger employees were subject to peer pressure to steal as a way of becoming part of the group. “It don’t mean nothing,” he says, was the basic rationale for dishonesty. “Getting on with getting mine” was another common phrase, as coworkers carefully avoided hard work or dragged out tasks like sweeping to avoid additional assignments.

All that customer service meant was getting rid of people as fast as possible and with the least possible effort. Sometimes, however, service was deliberately slowed or drive-through orders intentionally switched in order to cause customers to demand to see a manager. This was called “baiting the man,” or pur- posely trying to provoke a response from management. In fact, the general attitude toward managers was one of disdain and contempt. In the eyes of the employees, supervisors were only paper-pushing functionaries who got in the way. Sheehy’s coworkers rejected the very idea of hard work and long hours. “Scamming” was their ideal. Treated as a kind of art form and as an accepted way of doing business, scamming meant taking shortcuts or getting something done without much effort, usually by having someone else do it. “You only put in the time and effort for the big score” is how one fellow worker characterized the work ethic he shared with his peers. “You got to just cruise through the job stuff and wait to make the big score,” said another. “Then you can hustle. The office stuff is for buying time or paying for the groceries.” By contrast, they looked forward to working “at a real job where you don’t have to put up with hassles.” “Get out of school and you can leave this to the real dummies.” “Get an office and a computer and a secretary and you can scam your way through anything.” On the other hand, these young employees believed that most jobs were like the fast-food industry: automated, boring, undemanding and unsatisfying, and dominated by dif- ficult people. Still, they dreamed of an action-packed busi- ness world, an image shaped by a culture of video games and action movies. The college students in particular, reports Sheehy, believed that a no-holds-barred, trample-over-anybody, get-what-you-want approach is the necessary and glamorous road to success.

After reading Case 4.4 on page 181 in the text, answer the following question: How typical are the attitudes that Sheehy reports? Does his description of a new work ethic tally with your own experiences?

In: Finance

Tax savings are being passed down President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts into...

Tax savings are being passed down

President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts into law on Dec. 22, 2017, reducing personal income taxes for most families for the next 10 years. Corporations, however, received much bigger and more permanent tax cuts with the new law reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and reducing the tax on repatriated cash to 15.5%. The Congressional Budget Office estimates businesses will save about $320 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. The tax overhaul prompted hundreds of businesses to offer bonuses and pay raises to their workers and expand employee benefits. Here’s a selection of companies that have passed on some of their savings to their employees. 37.

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) smartly avoided paying out bonuses to its employees in the wake of tax reform. The company has a murky history with employee bonuses. Instead, it increased the minimum wage to $15 per hour, pushing competing banks to do the same. It’s unclear whether that pay raise is linked to the tax cuts as Wells Fargo’s press team has issued conflicting reports. Wells Fargo is also planning to donate $400 million to nonprofits this year. Wells Fargo stands to benefit from the 14 percentage point decrease in the U.S. corporate tax rate more than most other companies. Nearly all of its operations take place in the U.S. As a result, its effective tax rate could fall to about 22% this year, according to Goldman Sachs analysts, down from 33% last year. That would result in about $3.7 billion in tax savings. Even with a $1 billion fine hanging over its head, Wells Fargo is making out quite well from tax reform.

Companies will still come out ahead

There are many more companies that offered wage increases, bonuses, and other employee benefits in the wake of tax reform. Over 400 companies have announced plans to pass on some of their savings to employees in some form, with 4 million-plus workers receiving over $4 billion in bonuses, according to the GOP. Corporations should still come out well ahead even after paying out employee bonuses. The corporate tax cuts are permanent, and most companies opted to pay a relatively small one-time bonus compared to the benefits they’ll see this year alone. It’s also unclear if the wage and benefits plan increases are more closely tied to the tax cuts or a booming job market where companies are forced to compete more aggressively for labor. American workers are seeing more money in their pockets this year, but they need to save that money because it’s likely a one-time bonus and the personal income tax cuts aren’t permanent. Adam Levy owns shares of Apple, Express Scripts, Lowe's, and Starbucks. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, Apple, CarMax, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Mastercard, Starbucks, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool owns shares of Verizon Communications and Visa and has the following options: long January 2020 $150 calls on Apple, short January 2020 $155 calls on Apple, short September 2018 $180 calls on Home Depot, and long January 2020 $110 calls on Home Depot. The Motley Fool recommends Aflac, Amerco, CVS Health, FedEx, Home Depot, JetBlue Airways, and Marriott International. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

We see the headline that states unemployment is at the lowest rate in history, yet we seem to miss the news that many organizations are laying off large numbers of employees. This is a real time example of the hazards that result from poor or no workforce planning. Pick one of the companies mentioned in the slide show and do a bit more research on the situation surrounding the layoff plan and then answer your discussion question for this week.

- Write a one paragraph summary of whether or not you think that workforce planning could have avoided or minimized the layoffs at the company you selected from the list. Explain your answer.

- Write a second paragraph giving your view on whether or not effective workforce planning can create a more stable employment situation for the average worker in the US. This explanation should demonstrate your understanding of the HRP process.

In: Operations Management

Experiment 3: Charging by Contact and Induction In this experiment, you will charge pith balls by...

Experiment 3: Charging by Contact and Induction
In this experiment, you will charge pith balls by contact and induction.

Materials
Electrostatics Kit
Masking Tape
Monofilament Line
Paperclip
Wooden Block with Slit     
*Metal Object (ex. Doorknob)

*You Must Provide  
  


Procedure
1.   Tear one small piece of masking tape from the roll (approximately 5 cm).
2.   Create a small, closed loop with the tape, leaving the sticky side on the outside of the loop.
3.   Secure the looped tape to one of a side of the wooden block adjacent to the side with the slit.
4.   Press the taped side of the wooden block onto a smooth wall (or the flat side of a counter or table top) with the slit pointing perpendicular to the wall and parallel to the floor.
5.   Unwrap the outer layer of a paperclip.
6.   Use the exposed end of the paperclip to poke a hole through the centers of two pith balls.
7.   Thread one end of the monofilament line through one of the pith balls. Tie a knot on the end that you threaded through to keep the pith ball on the thread.
Note: If the paperclip created a larger hole, three to five knots may need to be tied to secure the ball on the thread.
8.   Repeat Step 7 on the other end of the monofilament line with the other pith ball.
9.   Once the pith balls are secured on each end of the line, place the line in the slit of the wooden block. The pith balls should rest at the same height.
10.   Remove any charge from the acetate strip (wide and clear) by grabbing it with your hand or rubbing it on a metal object like a door knob. This is called grounding.
11.   Test for interactions between the acetate strip and both pith balls. Record observations of any interaction.
12.   Charge the acetate strip by rubbing it with the cotton cloth.
13.   Slowly bring the plastic strip close enough to the right pith ball so that it moves, but does not touch the plastic strip. Once movement of the pith ball is observed move the plastic strip away. Record your observations (e.g., how far away were the two objects, how fast did the pith ball move, in what direction did the pith ball move, etc.).
14.   Slowly bring the plastic strip close enough to the left pith ball so that it moves, but does not touch the plastic strip. Once movement of the pith ball is observed move the plastic strip away. Record your observations.
15.   Hold the monofilament line above the right pith ball and bring the ball into contact with the plastic strip.
16.   Let the pith ball hang again and bring the plastic rod close to, but without touching the right pith ball. What kind of interaction is observed? Record your observations in Post-Lab Question 3.
17.   Hold the line above the right pith ball and bring it close to the left pith ball. Observe what happens. Let the balls come into contact. How does that change the interaction?
18.   Grab the pith balls to ground them and take away any charge they may have.
19.   Charge the plastic rod again with the cotton.
20.   Hold the line above the right pith ball with your pointer and middle finger. Bring the right pith ball close to the plastic rod, but do not let them touch. This time touch the left side of the ball (the one opposite of the rod) with your thumb. Let the ball hang again. Bring the right pith ball close to the left pith ball. Observe what happens.
Observations

After step 10-14 we can see a movement off the balls in the direction of the plastic strip (after rubbing it with a cotton cloth). The balls moves as close as it can to the plastic strip (like 2-3 cm)
When we put the plastic strip close enough to the left pith ball it moves to the left

Step 16- they were attracted to each other (the ball and the plastic)
Step 17- the balls a little bit attracted to each other but not too much


Post-Lab Questions

1.   Explain why the pith balls were attracted to the charged plastic strip.

2.   State two observations that show the right pith ball was charged after it came into contact with the plastic rod.


3.   What did you observe as you performed Step 16? Use your results to explain what happened.


4.   Draw a diagram to show how Step 13 charged the right pith ball.


5.   What is the charge of each pith ball if they are attracted to each other? Explain your reasoning.

In: Physics

Read the following article, relating to monetary policy and inflation in Japan, and answer the following...

Read the following article, relating to monetary policy and inflation in Japan, and answer the following questions.

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Bank of Japan on Wednesday cut its inflation forecasts for the three years through March 2021, putting its elusive target of 2 percent price gains farther from reach.

As widely expected, the central bank's Policy Board also decided after a two-day meeting to keep interest rates at their current ultralow levels as risks including trade friction between the United States and China cast a pall over growth in the global economy.

Inflation during fiscal 2018 ending March is expected to be 0.8 percent, down from 0.9 percent predicted in October amid a decline in global oil prices, the board said in its quarterly economic outlook report.

Prices are expected to rise 0.9 percent in fiscal 2019, a significant downgrade from the earlier forecast of 1.4 percent. In fiscal 2020, prices will rise 1.4 percent, down from 1.5 percent, it said.

Governor Haruhiko Kuroda told a post-meeting press conference that despite the dip in inflation, momentum toward the 2 percent target remains intact.

"It's true that we believe it will take some time to achieve 2 percent. The BOJ will persistently continue its current accommodative policy," he said.

The delay in reaching the target, which the central bank has been pursuing since 2013, puts the BOJ in an exceedingly difficult position.

It could put pressure on its policymakers to roll out additional easing measures, even as the protraction of current stimulus draws criticism for side effects such as hurting the profits of commercial banks.

Kuroda said he is closely watching this year's labor negotiations expected to start next month for signs that wages will begin rising in line with a tightening job market, an outcome that would give businesses the confidence to hike product prices.

"Wage gains are still somewhat tepid compared to the improvement in the real economy, corporate profits and the labor market. We'll see how that changes."

The central bank also lowered its forecast for Japan's economic growth in fiscal 2018 to 0.9 percent from 1.4 percent. For the following two years, it slightly lifted its forecasts to 0.9 percent and 1.0 percent growth, respectively.

The board's first meeting of the year came days after the International Monetary Fund downgraded its forecast for global economic growth this year.

Kuroda acknowledged that the world economy is facing increased downside risks including the U.S.-China tariff war and Britain's troubled attempt to exit from the European Union.

"If the trade tensions continue, there will be severe consequences," he said.

The board voted 7-2 to continue applying a short-term policy rate of minus 0.1 percent and to keep long-term yields near zero percent, with board members Goshi Kataoka and Yutaka Harada dissenting.

It also retained a pledge to keep rates low "for an extended period of time" ahead of a hike in the consumption tax in October, which it is feared will trigger a fall in domestic demand, and made no changes to its purchases of risky assets such as exchange-traded funds.

Source: Mainichi.jp

(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

  1. Australia’s short-term policy rate is called the cash rate. The cash rate has been held at 1.5% since 2016. Explain briefly the main mechanism used by the Reserve Bank of Australia to stabilise the cash rate. .
  2. The Bank of Japan has used large scale quantitative easing in recent years. What does quantitative easing involve? How does the use of quantitative easing change the way a central bank controls its short-term policy rate? .
  3. The article tells us that the Bank of Japan is continuing to apply a short term policy rate of minus 0.1%. How has it been possible for the Bank of Japan to reduce its policy interest rate below zero? What does a negative policy rate imply for private banks with reserve balances held at the Bank of Japan. .
  4. What does the Japanese experience demonstrate about the impact on the rate of inflation of large scale quantitative easing? Identify two factors, mentioned in the article, which suggest inflation will remain below target during 2019. .
  5. The Bank of Japan has chosen to hold the rate of interest (or yield) on long term (10-year) Japanese Government bonds close to 0%. How has the Bank of Japan been able to control the rate of interest on these bonds? What has the Bank done to hold the rate of interest on these bonds at zero? .

In: Economics