Search results

Chris Morrison and two partners introduced the first Fairtrade bananas in New Zealand in a bid to improve the social and environmental impacts of banana consumption. The trio started All Good Bananas in 2010. Using social media as a key marketing tool, the startup had grown to take a 5 percent market share in a fiercely competitive industry dominated by big players. In 2012, the entrepreneurs needed to decide the best way to increase sales of ethically sourced products under the All Good brand. Should they expand their share of the banana market or diversify into drinks?

The case is primarily based on tape-recorded interviews by the authors with the founding entrepreneur and three employees of All Good from May to July 2012 and an analysis of the company’s website and social media activities. Other publicly available information sources were drawn upon, and a discussion held with a New Zealand national grocery chain CEO.

This case has been written for use in classes in undergraduate and graduate level entrepreneurship, strategic management and sustainability. The case can be used to illustrate how very small resource-constrained startups can compete in an industry dominated by large multinational corporations, and how Fairtrade might provide a worthy differentiation focus. It is open to a consideration of judo economics. While several of the questions ask students to consider the New Zealand context in which this case is set, knowledge of New Zealand and the various industries beyond what is offered in the case is not necessary.

At a broad level the case illustrates how a small, resource-constrained startup can compete against much, much larger players through a niche Fairtrade product focus and the use of alternative marketing strategies such as guerrilla marketing and social media. In relation to the competitive dynamics within an industry, this case can be used to illustrate the concept of judo economics (also referred to as judo strategy). Both the utility and potential limits of judo economics can be demonstrated through the case by considering current activities and potential future dynamics.

This paper explores the question of whether the identification of many wrongdoings in an organisation requires knowledge of the technical and operating mechanisms of that organisation. If such is the case, many ethical problems cannot be resolved by a generalist. They must be left to people with knowledge of that industry. In attempting to answer the question, the paper examines 11 different types of organisations. It then asks how the ethical issues in those organisations might be resolved. The organisations are veterinarians, pharmacies, media companies, engineering firms, doctors, general businesses, including two sub disciplines, marketing and accounting organisations, nursing institutions, political parties, scientific research organisations, legal firms and information technology companies. Each can be a small professional company, locally based, or a large organisation, possibly international. Each exhibits one or more ethical problems that are not easily resolved by accepted ethical theory. Accepted theory, as further defined in the text, is the mainline ethical theories that would be core components of most ethics texts or courses. The question arises then on how would ethics be taught if the ethical issues require specialised knowledge of that industry sector. After examining the 11 industries, the paper puts forth two views. One is that a number of wrongs can be identified in industries and organisations where the ethical problems are complex and difficult to resolve, and where the standard ethical theories are of little or no help. Resolving these issues requires action from the organisation, or from the industry association encompassing all companies within that sector. A further complication has developed in the near explosive growth in whistleblower protection systems. These systems, now introduced in close to 30 countries around the world, have their own lists of wrongdoings for which the whistleblower will receive administrative and legal support. These lists of wrongs are distinct from any moral theory One conclusion to be drawn is that new methods possibly need to be found for teaching the identification and resolution of ethical issues. A second is a consequence of the first – that the teacher of ethics in these courses has to be drawn from within the industry. Further questions then arise: One is whether this demand then requires that this industry specialist learn moral theory? A second is then how would generalist applied ethics causes be taught (in humanities departments for instance)? Alternate viewpoints on joint teaching by a moral specialist and an industry specialist have been put forward. The paper puts forward one possible approach for the industry courses – that the industry specialist has to present the course, with new methods and content, but that a theoretical content is taught by someone knowledgeable in ethical theory. For generalist courses, the moral theorist has to include a sufficiently wide sample of industry and organisational ethical issues to ensure that students are aware of the wide range of ethical concerns that can arise, as well as approaches to resolving them.

My contribution to this conference will be an attempt to outline the part which local government—and that means principally, the public library—can play in a national information plan. This implies a need to look at the effectiveness of such services, their relationship with others, and indications for the future, bearing in mind the economic climate which is likely to prevail for several years yet.

The paper seeks to contend that first, the current law treating Neglect of Duty and Breach of Trust as a single offence is incorrect; and second, that the offences can be an important tool in battling public corruption.

The paper traces the historical development of the offences throughout the Commonwealth.

The single‐offence approach lacks historical antecedents and has not been uniformly adopted.

The paper could engender debate, and correction, of the single offence approach as well as encourage greater use of the offences in prosecuting egregious conduct that would not otherwise be criminal.