Touchdown or interception? The most controversial call of the night ended up being a touchdown for the Seahawks. Notice how the referees are signaling different things…
As I was browsing Bloomberg Businessweek’s website this morning, I found this article that I thought people would find interesting.
I’m sure a lot of you are aware, but this season the NFL used replacement referees for the first three weeks of the season because the usual officials were locked out. Throughout the beginning of this season, people have expressed their concern regarding the abilities of these replacement refs to control an NFL game. After a very controversial ending to this week’s Monday Night Football game caused major backlash from players, coaches, and fans (among others), the talks between the referees’ labor association and the League went into overdrive.
The lockout finally ended last night and the normal officials are set to return to the field for tonight’s Browns-Ravens game. The article was updated in light of this new development, and I thought it went along very well with our previous shareholder-stakeholder discussions.
The film Thank You for Smoking illuminates the issues of disassociating business and ethics with more than a hint of dark comedy. Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a man with a job that requires, as he puts it, “moral flexibility.” As the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for the Academy for Tobacco Studies, Nick receives and then spins blasts on behalf of the tobacco industry. He is also a member of the three person self-titled group “The Merchants of Death,” made up of a woman who works on the Moderation Council in the alcohol business, a man of the gun business’ own advisory safety group, and Nick himself. They frequently debate who has killed more people in their lifetime through work in their industry. Their commitment to these large corporations’ profit, which coincide with their own, exemplify shareholder theory to the extreme. Continue reading
Although we have continually analyzed the situation regarding Apple and the Foxconn controversy, it seems to me that there exists a general lack of accountability regarding the case. Everyone seems to point their fingers at someone else. One vital question still stands out to me – who’s fault is it? Who has let this happen? Who is responsible for a corporation’s good or bad ethics and how does this affect the business decisions? I want to further analyse the scene to identify Apple as either a shareholder or a stakeholder company, clarify what this means and the responsibilities held by each associated party, and finally answer the question of who is to blame. Who has to be ethical? Who’s job is it to protect the ethics of a company?
As a big Apple fan, I’m most interested in exploring the stakeholder/shareholder debate as it applies to Apple. Part of what makes the brand so unique is its large and loyal fan base, and in many ways this following has helped shape our perception of the company. But has Apple been catering to its fans? Or its shareholders? How have they been balancing the two? How have their decisions, whether ethical or unethical, influenced our perceptions of the brand? Could Apple be purposely misleading us to believe that they are a “good,” ethical company?
For my first paper, I am going to further explore Enron and examine how they were neither shareholder nor stakeholder oriented. The fall of Enron was actually due to the selfish narcissism of upper management. The key to a successful company requires a healthy balance between both shareholder and stakeholder values. If a company is too weighted towards either theory, it will be detrimental to everyone involved.
Enron should have been more focused on its stakeholders to benefit the long term of the company instead of being so short sighted. If Enron had done this, would they still exist today?