Crastinate

The tech bubble. The real estate bubble. Financial bubbles always seem to be in the news. But financial bubbles aren’t the only bubbles that affect our daily lives. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m getting my MBA right now. And when you’re in graduate school full time, you’re in a bubble. Your life is focused on getting assignments done, reading what needs to be read, and getting the best grades. It’s hard to directly connect how what you’re doing on a daily basis is beneficial to your long term goals. But you hope that the hard work you are putting in will pay off in the end.

That bubble was shattered yesterday when one of the international students in my program physically attacked another student. Something in him just snapped. I don’t have much information, but I do know that he was arrested and that charges will be filed. He will probably be kicked out of the Honors MBA program I’m in which would cause him to lose his student visa and be sent back to his home country. This student was top of our class and had a highly coveted Chase internship last summer. He was heading places. And in one fell swoop….all is gone. We’re living in the real world. And the real world has consequences.

This idea of bubbles bursting is even more prominent in the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai. These events of the past few days have shook me to the core. I know that terrorist attacks happen all the time. And I have never been naive enough to think that we should sit down and try to compromise with these people. But what happened (and still happening) in Mumbai goes beyond a typical attack. This was a coordinated event that targets Americans, Britains, and Jews. Hostages weren’t taken first. Random acts of killing came first. Life was not valued at all here. These people had no agenda (that we know of) other than to kill and terrorize. And regardless of what world opinions are, we all need to come together and not only condemn these attacks, but work together to find and eliminate these terrorist groups (and ALL terrorist groups). We need to stop living in this bubble that makes us think that we’re safe. There are people out there who want to kill us (the civilized world). And we (the civilized world) need to find them and kill them first. Some may call it war. I think of it as self defense.

I’ve recently written about the need for businesses to be cognizant of social issues and how they should try their best to improve areas of social concern when possible, but shouldn’t feel required to hurt their business to make progress in these areas.

In the comments the issue of cigarette companies was brought up and the “ethicality” of their businesses as a whole. The question was posed as to whether I am OK  with cigarette companies choosing to be unethical and ignoring the consequences of their product to the general public. Then, loyal Crastinate reader (Crastinator) Avi sent me an exchange between Rush Limbaugh and a caller on Limbaugh’s radio show. Limbaugh was making the case that if cigarettes were so bad for you, and they really kill people, why doesn’t Congress ban cigarettes. His argument was that the government needs the tax revenue from cigarettes and cares more about their revenue than they do about the health of their constituents.

Let me be clear on my position. I believe that if cigarettes were a brand new product in the market, and we have all the scientific information we have now on the addictivesness and correlation with cancer that we have now about cigarettes, they would be illegal. But that is not the situation. And we can’t just ban something that millions of people are addicted to in our country. I think the government’s approach towards these companies is a good one. You can’t change the current market that much but you can affect the future. Make cigarettes very expensive for potential new users. Create public awareness about the health dangers of smoking. And hopefully have an effect on the future consumption of cigarettes and slowly ween the American consumer off this addictive substance.

Limbaugh implied that cigarettes are not as dangerous as the studies have shown because if they were, then they would be banned. Comments from my previous post implied that if I feel that businesses shouldn’t have to hurt their bottom line to act ethically, than I’m OK with cigarette companies. Both of these statements are wrong. Cigarettes should be banned but can’t be because they have been sewn into the fabric of American culture (and tax revenue stream) for too long. So we’re trying to ease America off cigarettes slowly. I am not OK with cigarette companies and I wish I could shut them down but, because of already stated reasons, we can’t ban their product.

We ARE making progress with cigarettes and have recognized as a society that cigarettes are very bad for you. The tough ethical decision here is a bit easier because the line is so clearly drawn. How do you tell a business that they HAVE to be more socially responsible at a higher cost unless you make it law? I don’t think you can.

I’ve spoken previously about beggars wasting money. Loyal Crastinate reader Joseph brought this story to my attention. Apparently, Citigroup, the same Citigroup that the government is giving a $20 billion bailout package to, is keeping their sponsorship of the new New York Mets stadium. This sponsorship is a $400 million deal over 20 years which comes out to $20 million a year. That means that, to some degree, the tax payers are paying for the new Mets stadium. What else should we, the taxpayer, pay for? How about a new theme park? I know I could use some fun after this ridiculousness.

Some consider the term ‘business ethics’ as an oxymoron. Every MBA program (including the on I’m in now) has a required business ethics course. The goal of this course, from what I can gather up to this point, is for the students, future managers and leaders in business, to understand that business objectives and positive social change are not always in conflict. And that through business practices, one can have a hugely positive impact on social benefits. I agree with that. I think almost everyone in my program agreed with that before we even took the course.

I think that this overall agreeable consensus leads me to the problem I’m having with this business ethics course I’m taking now. The professor is trying to make the point that we not only can we create social change via our future business practices but have an OBLIGATION to create positive social change. I disagree with this. I think that consumer transparency is important and you have an obligation to be honest with your consumers. On the other hand, if I make a food product that is really bad for people’s health (<cough> Mcdonalds <cough>) and the consumer is aware of how bad it is and still eats it, that’s their problem. I believe in consumer transparency but I don’t believe in a requirement to create positive social change (in this case, it would be to stop selling food that is bad for people). If future trends show that people want to eat healthier, then maybe profits and social change can work in tandem. But it shouldn’t be a requirement.

While this difference might seem trivial to some, I think it highlights the major divide regarding corporate social responsibility in today’s business world. Some people feel that corporations are required to act as forerunners in positive social change. Business people wouldn’t mind being the leaders for social change, but they have to see the financial benefits before they do so. Dove was given much praise and had a large sales increase because of their famous ads that used real women with realistic waist sizes rather than models who are size 0. This pushed for positive social change and helped increase profits. It can work. And companies who can make it work, should try. But it’s not an obligation and shouldn’t be presented that way.

[polldaddy poll=1136264]

I know it’s better for the environment to use paper bags instead of plastic (let’s forget the irony that we moved to plastic bags because we didn’t want to chop down all those trees to use paper). How can the supermarket, or anyone, expect me to use paper bags when there aren’t any handles? You’re limiting me to carrying only two bags at a time.

I know it’s a stupid little thing, but I would guess that I’m not alone. If those environmentalists want consumers to start using paper bags, make bags with handles (that won’t rip). I think that is what’s holding back the whole ‘paper bag’ initiative. Until I see handles, I’m always choosing plastic.