#Feedback

Feedback week 1a: Laura Lucas – http://lauralucastrujillo.blogspot.nl/

Feedback:

I did not know all the down sides of wind farms. So that is good to know.
You took the assignment a little further to add possible solutions for the problem, that was new to me.

I am not fully understanding your industrial ecology puzzle. I don’t know why, it maybe my way of reading it. But I will try to explain why I don’t get it ;).

I feel that you are not defining a question and if you don’t have a question you can not try to explain why this is happening. Like we did in the first lecture. Try to explain why the Kuznets-curve looks the way it looks.

In my opinion you are only telling the reader what is bad about wind turbines. A lot of other people try to explain their puzzle by using the following three elements: Natural, Political and Economic. This gives more structure in explaining the phenomenon and more clarity to the reader.

I hope you understand  what I am saying. This is my first feedback and I find it quite hard to do.

I find your argument about Frieman well written, with clear examples of businesses who use their profit for the benefit of the community.

Feedback week 1b: Zinzi Wits – http://industrialecologyandthechallengeofcoordination.wordpress.com/

Feedback Puzzle

Interesting puzzle and you explain is short and clear. Unfortunately I can’t give you more tips to improve because I am not puzzled by what you are saying. ;)

Feedback Friedman

Also sort en clear. I think less is more. The only thing you could add in my opinion is a more fluidly transition from the part where you are talking about the shareholders to your end conclusion (in the end it is about people). For me it feels a little to abrupt as an ending.

Feedback week 2a: Ella Baz – http://socialsystems-ebaz.blogspot.nl/

1. Feedback bounded rationality

First of all, interesting and difficult topic! I mean difficult in the sense that it is a heavy topic in my opinion because of its impact on Japan and of the changed view the world has now on nuclear power.

In class we heard that it is better to use the four principles of bounded rationality to help you to make the type of decisions related to the topic more clear. I think it would help in your case to clarify it. We talked about this in class, for me this is a easy comment to make ;)

I find your explanation about the bounded rationality quite hard to understand. You have a lot of players who made decisions. You are telling the reader what the company did not do but I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, we have to think more about what the background was behind the action (taking the principles in mind). In your case, what could be the reason for Tepco not to put more safety measures in place?

Money? No governmental control? They did not think anything could go wrong? Not enough checkups? The risk management was not taken serious? The checkup reports were just put on a big pile?

It is not totally clear for me from whose perspective you are looking at regarding the decision. Is it Tepco, the ministry or the three parties you are talking about?

It is always easier to give comments than to write it yourself. Hope you find my comments sort of instructive.

2. Feedback Friedman

You say that business has become more transparent, could you explain that a little more? For instance, in what way more transparent? Or what is for you the reason (give an example) to state that they are more transparent than in Friedman’s time.

Personally I think it could be a lot more. For me companies try to be very thoughtful in what they let the public know and now with the social media they are even more aware of what the image of the company should be. Like getting information from companies about how much CO2 they produce, they will not give it. But we can get it out of a database from the EU. That is for me a big sign that companies are far away from being transparent.

Feedback week 2b: Sway Leung – swayleung.wordpress.com

Hi Sway,

It is nice that you go over the theory in your articles context, I did not do that and I think I will change that.

But I have a critical note too. I found your ‘….’ a distraction. You expect from your readers to guess what will follow. The same comment for ‘etc.’ I feel a little dump that I do not know what should come at the dots or what should be all the etc. For the not all-known reader it would be nicer to explain more or just delete the dots. You could disagree with me but this is just how I interpreted your text.

Further more, I found your writing about this topic a little rushed. I read some of your other assignments and those I can understand better. For me the sentences are not finished or you are too jumpy in the writing style. For me it would help if it had al little more body to get a better understanding of the complexity of your topic. You have a lot of players who have different reasons to act in a certain way for every topic.

Maybe it would be more clear for me it you made a choice in whose actions you are going to explain. Our teacher talks a lot about setting boundaries, maybe this would help in your case for me to understand it better. What could be a reason for Ban Ki-Moon to act? What is the reason for the reaction of some countries? The role and decision made by the scientist and there reason for the action?

regards,
Chloe

Feedback week 3a: Carl Kuehl – http://iekalkuel.blogspot.nl/

Hi Carl,

You took beautiful pictures! Good for me to see the area you are writing about. Gives it something extra. I can not really give a comment what you can do differently. You have a good example of a social ecological system and you go over every topic of this system for you SES and explain well to the reader what it is and what the weak spots are in this. You give your opinion at the end what you think of the actors and how well maintained the park is.

The only thing I might be missing is a critical note, what can be done better? Are there regulations that could be different? Maybe this is not possible to add, but it is a thing I could think of ;)

Feedback Friedman

You lost me in this. Maybe I had to read your other Friedman pieces but I have no idea what Prakash elaboration is. Or what policy type 1 is. Maybe I missed this in the theory we had to read. But I think you have to write you blogs in a way that people are able to read your piece with no knowledge to the specific theory.

If I read further on and ignore you first paragraph I can understand what you are telling the reader. And I don’t see anything that I think has to do with Prakash. Why mentioning it then in the beginning? If you use it you should refer to it in later parts of the text? Than it is more clear what it is, why you want to use it and what the connection is.

Best,
Chloe

Feedback week 3b: Joan Wildenberg – http://thoughtsaboutindustrialecology.wordpress.com/

Hi Joan,

Feedback SES

Thank you for the introduction of the topic and the introduction to the theory. For me it is good to read an overview. I had a lot of trouble with this topic and you make it sound really logical and doable. I think your topic is well chosen and you can nicely use it to apply to Ostrom’s framework.

The only comment I can make is, after reading some other blogs about this topic, that they explain more what every part of the framework means. I don’t know if you need to, but it can be useful to tell the reader a little bit more about the heavy topic you are addressing to make them more aware about the background of the hard wood if they are buying the hard wood themselves.

Feedback Friedman

You explain the reader very clearly what your boundaries are, this way I cannot question what you are explaining to me.

You apply Friedman’s theory very clearly but I am wondering what you think of this? What is your opinion? Maybe I don’t need to know but this blog is a format designed to express your opinion.

Friedman also states that it is the government’s tasks to apply social and sustainable rules for businesses. Where is the (local) government in this story and what can be the role over the governments of the countries that buy and sell the hard wood? Can they set rules in order to change the deforestation in Para, Brazil before the consumer is tough enough to make a stand?

Best,
Chloe

Feedback week 4a: was no blog entry – Raissa Ulbrich – http://sspmbloginanawesomeautumn.wordpress.com/

Feedback week 4b: Suzanne Dietz – http://suusonthesocial.blogspot.nl/

Hi Suzanne,

I have nothing to add, you have a clear explanation how legitimacy is not that important to the supplier because of the powerful relationship that creates dependency between the (three) relationships. Well argued, a lot of examples to support your argument. I was a little overwhelmed by the volume of you text.

I found what you wrote at ‘Legitimacy as a motivator for diffusing sustainability’ the most interesting part of this post. Good balance between your opinion, facts and more insights about the topic.

The only point I can make is that I find the first part of your text a bit long and elaborate for a blog entry. I got distracted by the amount of words and where your story was going. Maybe you can make it a little more compact to make it stronger?

I found some little spelling mistakes, like government it is not governement (I would never think, me as a dyslectic would make a spelling comment :p) You could run a spell check when you are done writing to get rid of the little incorrectness.

Best,
Chloe

Feedback week 5a: Cenyang Tang  – http://cenyangtang.blogspot.nl/

Sorry, I found your text quite hard to understand. I had to reread it a couple of times to really get a good understanding of what you were saying. You topic is very interesting and it was one big step towards the global network we are in today. Thank you for sharing, I now know why Singapore is so important and I know now how this trading construction come into existence.

The linkage to the social network is good, but I think you could explain a little more the why than only say it is a social network because of the trust in each other.

The things I am missing are some sources where all the dates and facts are coming from. I have to accept what you write as true, I will, but if I want more background information where your text is based on..

You are also forgetting the last part of the assignment, the part you have to think about closing material loops. You could add this or you could tell the reader what the reason is for not going into this part of the assignment. Maybe because your network is too general (or give another reason)? If you mention why you are not addressing closing material loops we all know that you didn’t forget this part of the assignment.

Best,
Chloe

Feedback week 5b: was no blog entry – Weiwen Zhong – https://weiwenzhong.wordpress.com/

After this I stopped with giving feedback because of the lack of feedback on my blog.

Mastermind

In class we teamed up in a group of eight people to create a game. We came up with the following:

Learning aim: Experience processes of social evolution – through imitation, changing conditions and limited information.
The game is called “SSPM Mastermind”
Everyone (divided in groups of five to seven students) represents a firm. The facilitator is the population that buys goods.
The firms produce products, with three different symbolic (neutral) characteristics with three values each.
The population returns the final value of the products, based on their preferences (in three abstract values). Values are set at the start of the game and change over time randomly by rolling a dice.
As final evaluation the abstract values are converted into concrete examples (in this case, cars).

All groups are firms selling product X. The game leader is representing ‘the market’ and sets the boundaries for the game.

The following products are produced:

Small / Medium / Large
Green / Blue / Red
Cup / Plate / Bowl

The market wants a random combination of the products stated above – this combination is decided before the start of the game. As an example, a Small Red Cup. The firms have to guess this combination. They can fill in the combination they think the market wants and hand that in. After they hand in the guessed combination they will receive points accordingly the amount of correct elements: 10 points if you have one correct element, 20 with two, and 50 all three elements are right.

The obtained points are published on the blackboard/computer screen/whiteboard or something similar after each round. This way the other firms can see what elements are chosen and how many points were given. Now they can make a new validated assumption (and imitate each other) on what the market wants and hand in a new combination of elements. If the 50 points are given, the market will change its combination and all the teams/firms have to start guessing again.

After each round, a new condition/rule is added to the game, by rolling a dice. The market has six conditions: three conditions are set by the government and the other three are set by the consumers/market. The game leader (market) will roll the dice to see what the condition is going to be. An uneven roll of the dice implies a governmental condition, and this condition is said out loud. An even roll of the dice implies a consumer/market change of mind. This new condition is not provided to the group and it is to the firms to find out.

The six conditions:

1. The government decides that the points given to the firms will be divided by two. If one is rolled again, the points will be doubled.
2. The consumer decides they want to size up (or down if the condition is already set at Large).
3. The government decides Large is no longer an option.
4. The consumer changes the color.
5. The government decides Red is no longer an option.
6. The consumer changes object (Cup/Plate/Bowl).

Final evaluation:

The abstract values as mentioned above, can be concretized into for example the following products:

Small / Medium / Large = a small car / medium size car / a big car
Green / Blue / Red = environmental friendly / neutral / energy inefficient
Cup / Plate / Bowl = basic car / sports car / pimped car

As a side note, what may be missing to my game?

• A way for the gamer to mess it up for all the other firms (like in the fishing game, that we were able to empty the ocean)
• Natural selection
• Niche market
• Change towards an ecological production

#7 LCA

(assignment from week 7 but written in week 10)

The question for this week’s assignment is to think of four ways in which governments can increase the use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) through external control and setting boundary conditions. The use of Sabatier’s framework will help assess the potential effectiveness of external control vis-a-vis other options.

LCA stands for Life Cycle Assessment and is a tool to evaluate the environmental impact of products and services. The entire life (circle) of a product or service, from the raw materials for a product until its disposal, is taken into account. The term Life Cycle Assessment is known by industrial ecologist but not well known by governments. This blogpost will give some suggestions in what way LCA can be used within governments by using its mechanisms, external control and setting boundary conditions.

Boundary conditions are the conditions set by the government in order to outline/guide the self-organization of a system towards a specific goal.

External control, another way to describe the/a government, is a system that imposes rules and has the ability to monitor and sanction in order to control a social economic system.

I will give four possible ways for the implementation of LCAs, two for external control and two for setting boundary conditions.

1. Boundary conditions: Education
   One way to set boundary conditions is through education. Start in high school by teaching children on the environmental impact of the products they use in daily life. Guide them in making decisions towards the future and teach them how LCA could help. Link LCAs to fashion or the smart phone and show them with assignments the whole story behind those products.

2. Boundary conditions: Subsidy
   Subsidize companies to use LCA theory and LCA software. This way you give more access to a broader audience to use LCA and they may benefit from this knowledge to change organizational structures and it could be used as a marketing tool in these difficult times.

3. External control: LCA label
   Set rules for products and services to display to the consumer what the impact of the product with LCA is. This way the consumer has a choice, like they have with what is in a product or how many calories it has.

4. External control: Environmental check
   The government could impose rules for companies to use LCAs before they bring a product into the market, to ban products that have a big potential to or have a high impact on the environment. They could also set rules for the use of LCA for products that are likely to change behavior, like food that looks like it is good for you because it is low in fat but high in sugar so it is still unhealthy. This is taking the LCA label to the next level, giving companies strict rules for the max environmental impact a product or service is allowed to have.

Sabatier’s framework:

Traceability of the problem

Sabatier’s framework starts with the tractability of the problem. The following questions should be addressed: Is it possible to do? How does the target group look like? And finally, what is the availability of theory and technology?

The one big challenge concerning LCA is the fact that it is based on many assumptions. Companies may present the assumptions in their favor instead of showing the overall benefits from the LCA research. As a government it is important to know what these variables may be before strict rules may be imposed for companies concerning LCA implementation for their products and services. Regarding education: it may be challenging tot teach these assumptions to the children in the right context and guide them in the right direction.

The target group of this problem is widely spread. It includes high school children with different backgrounds and companies in the field of food, goods and services. This may cause difficulties for the next step, which is implementation. Where do you need to start?

Ability of statute to structure implementation

With implementation one has to think of financial resources, formal access by outsiders, recruitment, decision-rules of implementing agencies (for my examples, in education and all kinds of goods), and some others.

The challenge here is making clear decision rules for LCA. You have to deal with case specific assumptions that can be made in so many ways that companies will make use of lobbyists to influence representatives of governments. As a result, companies/sectors with enough resources/money may be able to implement or reject regulations, while others may not. Additionally, with all the assumptions that can be made there is a lot of room to influence the implementation in a way that delays the decision making in the favor of the company or sector.

Because of the endless possibilities in LCA it may be hard to monitor and sanction the lack of implementation and to argue what is right and what is wrong in which case.

Non- statutory variables affecting implementation

The last indicator of Sabatier’s framework considers the non-statutory variables affecting implementation. This includes social-economic conditions and technology, media attention, public support, support from sovereigns and commitment and leadership skill of implementing officials.

These variables are outside governmental control, and include the influence on the media on the whole public. LCA is linked to climate change, which has been a hot topic for the last decade. The media play a big part in creating these uncertainties for the population, questioning whether it is an issue or not. LCA would help the overall population to decide for themselves how they can reduce their impact on the environment, by providing extra information. However, this can be a bottleneck as well. What if the overall population is not able to properly understand for example the LCA labeling? Can you be sure that the public does not make the wrong assumptions? In The Netherlands we do not control the media, they can make there own assumptions. I therefore believe that it will be necessary that the government provides easy accessible (re)sources in order to give the public the chance to see all possible assumptions concerning LCAs.

 

Conclusion

At the start of the project I believed that implementation of LCA in education could enrich the knowledge of the population on the sustainability of their daily products and services. However, after I used Sabatier’s framework I came to realize LCA may not be the right tool for the majority of the public because of all the assumptions that can be made. I see all those sixteen years old looking at the teacher questioning every single thing he/she tells them about their iPhone or the Christmas sweater they bought at Primark and challenging the assumptions in a way that it is still a fair product for them to use. I see lobbyists from Coca Cola who tweak the rules for water use in order that Coca Cola does not have to change anything in their production process.

Furthermore, given the complexity of using LCA in all our (global) supply chains and the high cost of policies for all kinds of products, companies and (local) governments, I also have to conclude that boundary conditions can not be set without external control. In the current economic system it is more important to make profit, than to invest in LCA or other tools to diminish environmental impact. Like Friedman said, the government has to set rules in order to gain social and economic change.

Although the school kids may make fun of their teacher while educated, or the Coca Cola lobbyist may influence the governments, I still believe that it would be good for the public to get a better understanding of what LCA can add to their daily use of products and services. The government has to take the lead and start, learn from what goes wrong and right, then set the semi ideal boundary conditions and know what kind of monitoring methods or sanctions are needed for the private sector. In this manner, we may be able to make a change towards a sustainable future.

#6 – THE GAME

Redo after 4 dec = blue 

After the feedback in the lesson and the one I received, I have something to add to this 
blog, you will find it in blue.

Just to refresh our memories. We played a game in class and it went as followed. The class was divided in 6 groups. Each group became a fisher boat. We all were going to fish in the ocean. There are 50 fish in the ocean and they can reproduce but the number of fish can never become higher than 50.
We play 6 to 8 rounds and each round we can catch fish. Every group has to decide with each round how many fish they want to catch, write a number of fish your group wants to catch on a piece of paper and see if you are able to catch that amount. The ocean keeps track of the fish and gives the people (in random order) the amount of fish they asked for. To keep a sustainable system every group can ask for 4 fishes (one group can ask for 5).
Other rules are, that we could not communicate with different groups or check what the status of the fish is in the ocean.

Lets play the GAME!

We played the game, but in the 4 rounds the ocean was empty! What happened? Some groups asked for more fish than they needed. Just to see what would happen. So they asked for 10 fish. Another asked for 8. With these numbers the ocean was empty within no time. People find it boring to ask for 4 fish each round, what is the competition in that was the question? You can ask yourself, is the game to make the most profit (catch the most fish) when the ocean is empty or is it the game to keep a sustainable environment and try to catch the most fish as a collective?

The assignment for now is, what can we do to this game to make sure that we do not empty the ocean. One parameter has changed. The groups are now allowed to communicate with each other. That is it. We are not able to see what is in the ocean and we do not know what everybody is doing each round. Unless…

The new game goes as follows:

The classroom will be divided in small groups like before, who are the fisher boats. The difference is that we can communicate and we are sending one person of every fisher boat to represent his or her group. They become the communication magnesium between the fisher groups and the whole. The new group, lets call them the union, can decide on some measurements that can be taken in order to keep a healthy ocean and a sustainable fisher business. If everybody is honest and reports the fishing amount to the union the fisher groups are able to maintain a sustainable fishing game.

To keep an interesting game and everybody motivated to fish a sustainable fishing amount, the groups can decide on a x amount of rounds that they minimal have to play before some groups can benefit for fishing the right amount of fish to keep the fish alive. (Just as a sight note, it is still possible to sabotage the game and fish a little too much).

If one or two groups have done a good job and kept fishing the right amount for the x rounds they can send another person to the union group. The union has, for example, two persons, those two now have a bigger vote in the union and have a better position to give their opinion and make changes.

The changes can be that the amount of fish that each group can fish, re-divide or that we can sell their vote to one another.

My suggestion for this problem would be to communicate with each other in order to compose one big company or something as such. We become a union, like the European Union. In becoming a union we can co-benefit from each other, we catch fish and afterwards they can be divided. This way we know that the sea will not become empty. Nobody will empty the ocean and we can get angry with each other during meetings when we are dividing the fish and this will spice up the game ;)

#5 – Network assignment

Identify a regional network of production (drawing on own experience, literature, the news).
I found an article about a Dutch wedding dress maker in Hengevelde ( a Twentse village).

The wedding dress maker and seller is the network of production I am going to asses.

The story in short: in 1955 Brian Kuipers took over the bridal company ‘Très Chic’ from his father, the founder of the company In the ninties times were tough and Brian had to change the company in order to keep the company alive. He moved the production to Taiwan (he was able to do this with the knowledge of American companies). The factory owner in Taiwan was charging Brain too much so he decided to set up his own factory in Xiamen China. His business is doing well, he sells his dresses Germany, Switzerland , Poland, Denmark, Australia and even Liberia (he achieved creating these contacts by being at ‘Interbride” the largest bridal fashion fair in the world).

Analyze this network using at least two of the concepts presented, paying particular attention to the linkage of the regional network with ‘non-local’ actors.
Starting with resource dependency, I don’t want to address resource dependency in the sense that the bridal shop owner did not get materials from his suppliers or that the waste heat of the factory is not being used. But I want to use resource dependency in making sales. Due to economical changes in the time the bridal shop switched from owner there was very little demand for the dresses to keep the business running with 250 employees (the dress makers). The new owner had to change the network in order to keep his head above water. He managed this by expanding his network from selling the dresses only in The Netherlands to going to other countries in Europe. He packed dresses in his car and drove through Europe to sell the dresses. By doing so he changed his network. He made the decision to broaden his network even more by relocating his production from The Netherlands to Taiwan, after some time Brian found out that the factory owner was double-crossing him in asking too much money for the dresses, so he set up his own factory in Xiamen, China (and he is still there). Brian changed his dependency on the dubble crossingTaiwan factory owner into his favour by setting up his own factory. In doing that he became independent and could establish his own manufacturing conditions.

I have no idea how to incorporate another concept of the theory at this moment!

Make clear how the network you identify constrains and/or enables actors to work towers closing material loops.
This article is not telling the reader anything about material flows and such. I only can make a guess.
Brian is using materials (bridal dresses) produced in China, he transports them to The Netherlands, when at Rotterdam harbor he exports the dresses all over Europe. Australia and the US receive the dresses directly from Xiamen.
Wedding dresses are usually worn only once and the dress stays in the lady her closet. To close this loop of producing, selling, wearing and hanging in a closet the producer should offer a return of the dress to re-use some if its materials or resell it to brides who have less money. This loop that will start after its one time use can go on until the dress can only become part of a moving blanket or burn to generate electricity.
Looking at the concept of closing material loops around Brian’s factories you could say that they use heat of others to steam the dresses. The waste water may be useful to others. Further more I could do some research later on to be more specific.

 

—————————————————————————-/

Dutch article – FD Monday 15th September 2014 – update Friday 10th October 2014 

http://fd.nl/ondernemen/891735/twents-dorp-middelpunt-van-europese-bruidsmode

Twee rotondes, drie kroegen en slechts 2200 inwoners. Het lijkt een rustig Twents dorp, maar zodra je Hengevelde binnenrijdt doemt Très Chic op, het op twee na grootste bruidsmodeconcern van Europa.

Ooit naaiden 150 dames hier trouwjurken voor iedereen die maar het jawoord gaf. Vader Marinus Kuipers begon 50 jaar geleden vanuit een eierloods van de Oostelijke Pluimvee Coöperatie zijn atelier. Maar het was zoon Brian Kuipers (49) die van het familiebedrijf een internationale onderneming maakte.

Goede verkoperHij nam Très Chic over in 1995, een lastige periode voor het bedrijf. De handel in bruidsmode beleefde zware tijden, steeds minder mensen gingen trouwen en bovendien verplaatste de productie zich naar lagelonenlanden. ‘Ik begon met een bankschuld van miljoenen. Ik koos voor China, maar dat betekende dat ik bijna alle dames moest ontslaan. Van de 145 dames bleven er uiteindelijk 21 over. Het was pijnlijk, maar noodzakelijk.’

Toch staat Kuipers niet te boek als een baas die met de botte bijl hakt. Hij wordt eerder gezien als multitasker — hij heeft naast Très Chic nog drie andere bedrijven — en als goede verkoper. ‘Ooit deden we een wedstrijd, wie de meeste jurken in één week kon verkopen. Mijn buurman had er ooit 890 verkocht. Ik heb de jurken achterin de bus gegooid en ben gaan rijden, Duitsland, Oostenrijk, die kant op. Dan vroeg ik in de eerste de beste stad waar ik aankwam gewoon aan een vrouw: “Als jij morgen zou trouwen, waar zou je dan je jurk kopen?” Dan wist ik meteen waar ik zijn moest. Ondertussen belde mijn pa steeds. “Hoe ver ben je al?”, vroeg hij dan. Ik heb die week 1180 japonnen verkocht. Ja, dat record staat nog steeds.’

Zakelijke marktHoewel het bedrijf nog altijd jurken verkoopt voor de particuliere markt, komt de meeste omzet nu van de zakelijke markt. Met name Duitsland (60% van de omzet) en Zwitserland, Polen en Denemarken zijn grote afzetmarkten. Ook verkoopt het Twentse dorp jurken in Australië en zelfs Libië. ‘Via de grootste bruidsmodebeurs ‘Interbride’ kom je met die landen in contact.’

Vrijwel iedere jurk die gemaakt wordt in de Chinese fabriek van Kuipers in Xiamen bereikt de Europese markt via Hengevelde. ‘Om de week is er standaard ruimte in een vliegtuig naar Nederland. Donderdag wordt het verscheept, op maandagochtend geeft de douane het vrij en maandagmiddag zijn de japonnen bij ons. Of het nu 1 of 50 dozen zijn.’

Ondernemen in ChinaMaar hoe begin je als Twentse ondernemer midden jaren ‘90 een eigen productiefaciliteit in China? ‘Ik was nog nooit in China geweest, maar kwam via een groot Amerikaans bruidsmodeconcern in contact met een fabrikant in Taiwan. Hij wilde ook wel voor ons produceren. Die Taiwanees had een fabriek waar veel Chinezen in dienst waren. Met een van haar, Ashow, had ik veelvuldig contact. Na jaren liet de baas van die fabriek een keer een factuur slingeren. Ergens in een lade vond ik een prijslijst met daarop alleen onze modellen. Daaruit kon ik opmaken dat hij alleen aan Très Chic al jaarlijks twee Mercedes S-klasse in zijn zak stak. Dat kon niet de bedoeling zijn.’

Ook Ashow was niet tevreden met haar baas, omdat Chinees personeel heel anders werd behandeld in de fabriek dan Taiwanees personeel. ‘Ze belde me huilend op en meteen zei ik tegen haar: ‘Jij gaat voor mij werken’.’

Twee maanden later begonnen we vanuit een appartement ergens in Xiamen een fabriek. Inmiddels zijn we drie keer verhuisd, steeds naar een groter pand. Het atelier telt inmiddels 60 medewerkers. Vanwege de regelgeving in China staat alles op naam van partner Ashow. ‘Zij is mijn rechterhand in China. Ze is de enige die fatsoenlijk Engels spreekt.’

Zo nu en dan komt ze naar Hengevelde. ‘Dan eet ze met ons mee en moeten mijn zes kinderen hard lachen om haar gesmak. Ja, van die cultuur en die gebruiken daar in China begrijp ik nog altijd maar weinig. Ashow heeft bijvoorbeeld wel eens ondergedoken gezeten, toen ze zwanger was van haar tweede kind. Dat mag daar niet, met die éénkindpolitiek. Ook voor de fabriek was dat niet bepaald handig.’

#4 – Nokia case study

In this assignment we are answering three questions that followed after we have watched the documentary about Nokia conducting a survey in one of their factories in China.
In short what the documentary is about. It is about Nokia that wants to get more insight in how their products are produced. What are the working conditions? What get the workers paid (etc).
Someone from Nokia visits one of their factories to find answers to these questions. As a viewer you see how the factory owners react on these questions. You also see clearly that Nokia and the supplier have different views on the matter of how the business should be run.

If you want to watch the documentary, clink on this link: DOC

Question one: Analyze how the two key organizations in this case, Nokia and the supplier, are striving for legitimacy.
You see clearly in the documentary that Nokia and the supplier have a different idea when talking about legitimacy. The supplier is doing his business thinking about the regulations but not following the regulations. The more money they save on labor the better and if they are not following the rules then so be it. They only change their ways if they will get a fine. And even then they will not change more than they absolutely have to.

Nokia on the other hand positioned itself as a sustainable brand. Taking responsibility for the working conditions of everyone who had something to do with their brand. Nokia wants to be the pioneer in the sustainable phone business by creating more visibility of their production process. Having the eyes of there stockholders looking over Nokia’s shoulder and demanding background information about how the Nokia phones are produced. The stockholders of Nokia want to invest money in a company that does more than just making profit.

Is this approach taken by Nokia an effective way of defining sustainability criteria?
You have to start somewhere and I think you have to give Nokia some credit for taking this step. In the documentary you see more than the delegation sees. The people who are filming everything are also filming what goes on behind the scenes. Managers asking (Chinese) which numbers they have to show Nokia, or to move the chemicals from the bathroom to the kitchen. The supplier sees his workers as things you can get rid of when they do not function the way you want (or when they have a child).

How could another coordination mechanism improve this?
Now Nokia is asking the supplier to change the current situation. The supplier is not very willing because it will cost them more money. In the documentary is also shown that the supplier had given the people who were working on Nokia products a pay raise. Noticing this, if Nokia is demanding different working conditions, the supplier is only going to change the Nokia workers’ working conditions and not for all laborers. It is the question how that will benefit the workers. The people who are earning less money might start bullying the Nokia workers.

Nokia could contact the other parties that buy products from this supplier to join Nokia in its vision to improve the working conditions.
Nokia could start to set up its own Nokia factory in China. This way Nokia can set the rules and treat the workers the way they see fit. Better housing, fair payment (what the government set as minimum wages)

#3 SES

In this post I will address the General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems by Elinor Ostrom. The topic for the resources is bio cotton production in Colombia.

I chose for cotton because it is known for the high water use. Cotton puts high pressure on the environment of the land where the cotton grows. Also due to the extensive use of pesticides and other chemicals the impact on the environment is enormous..

The project in Colombia started to teach cotton farmers and cotton processors to produce bio cotton. The aim is to be the largest bio cotton producer of Latin America. In the article about this project states that the company will teach others how to become a bio cotton producer. If a company completes the program they receive the right to have a bio cotton certificate and are registered to become a registered bio cotton producer.
What makes this project different from other projects is that the initiator wants to address more than only the farming of the cotton, but also the makingof the thread, the weaving and the dying of the cotton. So far 11 companies are willing to follow this program in becoming a bio cotton producer.

Latin America, Colombia Tolima – Huila with an area of 10.800 ha

Resource Units
The cotton, water, soil, biodiversity, fertilizer

Resource System
The cotton farm in the aria of

Governance System
The government of Colombia, the government of one of the 32 departments Colombia has: Tolima,

Users
Farmers, cotton processors, companies who make clothes from the cotton thread, like the fashion industry.

ostrom’s framework:

Friedman states that the business of business is to make profit, if Colombia is going to invest in producing organic cotton this will create job opportunities. The companies will grow and others may want to join this business model if the others are doing better in selling their product.
The local communities will profit from this growing market.
The coin may have two sides. If the government wants to be the biggest player in organic cotton field they may impose more taxes for farmers who are not producing bio cotton to force them to turn their production around and produce organic cotton. This is in Friedman opinion the role of the government, to set rules to make (social) changes.
You could also see it from the core of Friedman his statement, higher cost per yield means that you are steeling from your shareholders, employees and your costumers because you have decided to change your production. No rules implemented by the government to change from normal cotton to bio cotton.

http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/textile-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=167523
http://farmhub.textileexchange.org/
http://www.socila.eu/en/pages/04_colombia_project_03.html

 

#2 – The (bounded) rational decision

Article from the Dutch newspaper FD. Translate with the help of google translate, the original document is at the bottom of this post.

The paragraph in the Energy Agreement on wind power is adjusted in some respects. The changes should make wind energy cheaper, but in the industry they lead to serious unrest. This is clear from discussions with various sources with knowledge of the matter. The essence of the changes is that the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) wants more control in deciding where the parks, and how quickly they get there. The idea is that more guiding, the wind power can be cheaper. The adjustments Minister Henk Kamp EZ suggests, on Fridays agenda of the Cabinet. Practically it means that the nine existing unused permits for wind farms at sea will be withdrawn. The subsidy yar for this year for green energy will be locked for applications for offshore wind farms. Reportedly Kamp can count on the support of the coalition parties VVD and PvdA.The owners of the licenses, in addition Eneco include Nuon and Essent, getting government compensation for those withdrawn. That sum must still be negotiated. Reportedly, all energy companies agree except Eneco. For the Rotterdam energy company Eneco, the grapes extra acid. The group was well advanced with a grant for a new park for the North Holland coast near Bergen on one of the old licenses. Eneco wanted the grant applications in November, but is now cut off.”It may not deploy existing licenses has a major impact on the willingness of foreign parties to further invest in the Netherlands,” said Public Affairs Director Ron White Eneco request. Eneco with Japanese Mitsubishi invests in wind farms in the Dutch North Sea. “If it is true what I hear, I think the smell of mismanagement when you throw the subsidy locked shortly before your license is expected,” says Green MP Liesbeth van Tongeren request.In coalition circles is noted that the owners of the licenses especially pay attention to their own interest. With the envisaged expansion of offshore wind as a renewable energy power producers still have opportunities to build wind farms it is called, will only sometimes a little differently than they would have liked The Department will designate three blocks where several wind farms will soon come to be. TenneT, the operator of the high voltage network, will connect these clusters on the net ashore. The first block is near the Zeeland Borssele to lie, with room for two wind farms. Tennet to be able to give this command, the law should be changed. There is the ministry doing. In the Energy Agreement that the government ended last year with a large group of civil society organizations has created a roadmap for wind power. The ultimate goal of 4.5 gigawatts of installed capacity in 2023 remains the same, but the annual increments to be adjusted. In the original plans, the intention was that there would be funding for 450 megawatts (MW) in 2015 rising to grant to 900 MW in 2020, now Camp wants the next five years, every year funding becomes available for 700 MW. Especially from the environmental lobby heard criticism about the plans. It is feared that the Netherlands is delayed with its European climate targets. The European Union has agreed that the Netherlands in 2020, 14% of its energy in a sustainable excites. Possible stumbling block is that an amendment is necessary for the planning Kamp, who may be unable to be ready. 2015 This would only be a first grant in 2016 to be the builder of a wind farm. Awarded Van Tongeren GroenLinks shares these concerns. “You have to actually start building ASAP.”

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Redo after 4 dec = blue

After the feedback in the lesson and the one I received, I have 
something to add to this blog, you will find it in blue.

The action Cancel the potential build of wind farms in The Netherlands.

The decision maker The decision was made by the Dutch government.

The rational decision For building large wind farms in sea. The reason that was given by the Minister was that he wants to have more control over the build, where it is built and how many Mega Watts they have to generate. The Minister of Economic Affairs believes that the cost are too high. The cost of building wind farms is too high taking into account that the cost for energy is very low (at this moment). However, the cost of energy is rather volatile, it can change at any moment. For example the crisis in the middle east increases or there will be more problems with Russia which can drive the cost of energy up the wall.

In the theory there is an example for how actions originate, the one that is aplicable for this case in my opinion is the intentional action. The intentional action that is made by the Dutch government are the believes that control could be better for the energy sector. (Maybe the desire to be re-alected, and they say this decision is better in the long term but in the short term this decision result in money saving for the Dutch government. )You could also state that we could use the Rational Actor Model to give a explanation for the decision making. The action is optimal, the minister could say that by his/this decision, the control the government is gaining could lead to a optimal wind energy sector. It could be linked towards the believe they created for themselves to give a explanation for this action. The municipality apality probably did some research to gather information to strengthen their believes so they can give the evidence to the parliament if they would question the decision.
It is not possible to gather all the information because to make the right decision because we don’t live in a perfect would (the minister is bounded by his believes, by where he grew up).

The bounded rational decision Although the Dutch government is not able to look into the future, they could take the lead and invest in cleaner energy. Right now it looks like they are money driven and not environment driven. The Government is not willing to make the long-term investment and only looking at cost reductions and that is sad. They have a perfect example in our German neighbors. They were prepared to take risks, it may not work perfectly but they believe in something and it helps the country to move forward and to improve the economy.  

In the theory (Jones) are the examples of bounded rationality decision-making in organizations; organizational memory, agenda setting, parallel processing, serial processing, emotional contagion and identification.
You could state that the minister (department) has his own agenda in this case (agenda setting), and because of the recession all the departments have to cut back. This may be one of the projects that can be postponed or be done by a successor in the subsequent cabinet in order to meet the current cut back requirements.
Because of the organizational experience/memory information gathering from different groups within the municipality who all have a different set of rules, routines and operating procedure that could lead to the wrong decision in the end.

2. Friedman

Friedman his proposition in a nutshell is that the business of business is making profit and that the governments have to set rules and businesses have no social responsibilities.
We have to rethink about what we think about Friedman his proposition in the context of providing and collection of materials. I still think Friedman is wrong. Now in the year 2014 I strongly believe humans have the responsibility of our own actions. A company is thought of, set up and maintained by humans. The same set of humans that form a government, live in the country that produces products or that buys the products.

Why would the one have different rules to follow that the others? In my mind I am taking this too far and I am seeing all the examples of people who have all those different conceptions, believes, values. And all those places that are destroyed in whatever way.
History shows us that we don’t treat each other as equals and we still don’t. Some humans care more about the future and others only about their bank account.
But lets say for the sake of argument, that we all are humans who think alike, want a nice amount on our bank accounts, want a future for the upcoming generations and a a healthy planet we can live on (People, Planet, Profit). Why would a company not be able to provide in that need and have a social responsibility towards the community? Be fair to its employees, make a decent profit to be able to invest and don’t kill off all resources. Why do we need a set of people who are labeled government to set those boundaries? Why would you limit yourself to what Friedman thinks what is the best for a company. I find it too shortsighted for this time and the future.

First assignment SSPM

My own industrial ecology-inspired puzzle and three alternative explanations for it.

The puzzle I want to address is the so called leasing. In 2012 phone companies (Hi, KPN and Telfort) tried to sell us their new business model: leasing your mobile phone. With the leasing business model the phone company would be responsible for the phone you use for a one or two year period. If the phone breaks down they fix it and when the contract ends you hand in the phone and you get a new contract with a new phone. The phone company remains responsible for the phone and that makes it an ecology example of the circular economy.

But this business model was not successful. What could be the cause of this “I do not want to lease a mobile phone” trend?

One of the reasons could be that it is to blame on the type of product. You could say that renting is a form of leasing and the Dutch don’t have any problem with renting a house or a car. But the renting/leasing of a mobile phone may be difficult due the fact that we use it in another way than we use a house. A phone is a very personal device, it is small, we carry it around all day, we use it daily and it becomes part of us. We have no problem with selling it after we have used it but returning it to the phone company is something else. We are not used to it. (habit)

Another reason could be the perception that leasing a phone is more expensive than ‘buying’  it.  (Often leasing is indeed more expensive for the user.)  (rational)

Last reason: We are very materialistic when it comes you our phone. A mobile phone is an important artifact for most people. (emotional)

Unfortunately the phone companies in The Netherlands stopped with the lease of phones in July and September 2013 (KPN and Hi) and May this year (Telfort).Belkostenwijzer

What would help to get the leasing industry up and running is to look at the type of products.  At this moment leasing is not attractive for mobile phones. A Dutch jeans brand (MUD jeans) only leases its jeans. Right now they have lease contracts for 1500 jeans. Their goal is one million jeans in lease.

I asked around which products could be attractive for lease: suits, shirts, bikes (i.e. racing/E-bikes), corrective glasses and art (is already been done).

Source: Belkostenwijzer, Telefoon- lease, http://www.belkostenwijzer.nl/Telefoon-lease/, September 17, 2014

 

 

Develop an ex ante position on the following proposition:

“the business of business is to increase its profits”

I disagree, I strongly believe that the business of business is to be a stable business making a profit. That does not mean the profit has to increase every year. A stable business is a sustainable business. Be stable, develop, invest in the company, its employees and in the products it’s making. Making a profit is necessary for research & development, innovation, trend setting.

I think the stock market is the polluter of a sustainable businesses. Look at some big names that thought the sky was the limit. ABN AMRO, Fortis, KLM, PostNL etc. Making more profit (increase stockholder value) became the main goal, being stable and sustainable was pushed to the background. Managing boards believe that stockholders are more important than their actual business (good products, client satisfaction and employees who enjoy their work,  the people who run the motor). Present stockholders, especially private equity companies are too much interested in making a quick buck instead of the long term investment that yields a steady dividend.

Take PostNL as an example, they were the only postal service in Holland and very respected, in that time the name was PTT Post and they were interested in quality. In 1994 they went to the stock market and the government, who was owner went for the quick buck and not in maintaining a sustainable business. In 1996 was the first take over (KPN, owner PTT Post, purchased the Australian postal service TNT). First name change: PPT Post became  TNT. This was the start of their downfall and they still have no idea to improve their business to the level it once was and sadly they don’t make enough profit. They are going from one reorganization to another. Their service level is poor. Product, client and employees are ancillary to stock value, instead of the other way around. Stock value has become a goal in itself and managing boards / investors don’t give a sh*t for the history, the products or services their businesses provide to the collective.

Is it possible to make changes in the business of business as an industrial ecologist to move toward stability and sustainability? We have to believe we can. We cannot take back what is done. But we can try to help establish a stable and sustainable environment.