admn 460 module 1 assignment

ADMN 460 Business & Society

Assignment #1

Submitted by:

Cari Berukoff

Student #1000-25976

January 31, 2010

Cari Berukoff100025976

PART A: Cisco in the Coyote Valley

Question 1

The following chart first lists; in the left-hand column, both the primary and secondary stakeholders

influencing or influenced by Cisco Systems in their plans to establish an industrial park in Coyote Valley

of San Jose, California. Secondly, the roles of these stakeholders are described in the right-hand column.

Primary Cisco employees The employees are in favour of the project

because it would allow for more employment

opportunities and perhaps greater pay

Primary Stockholders The project would make Cisco produce more;

therefore the stockholders would gain more

interest

Primary Customers Enables the customer to receive the product

faster and would be of better quality

Primary Suppliers Get more business and more profit

Primary Retailers and wholesalers More products to sell faster and more money

Secondary General public Would be for and against this expansion

(same as the community)

Secondary Activist groups Defend their opinions of environmental

practices, argue that this land would be better

suited for wildlife and shouldn't be used for an

expansion

Secondary Government Face the question of whether to step in, set

legislation in favour of one of the two main

parties; the government would like to promote

job growth and this expansion would provide


more jobs in the area

Secondary Community Would be for and against the Company's

expansion. Some would feel like it would

offer more jobs to the area and some would

feel like it would drive people outside of the

area

Question 2

One key issue of concern to the stakeholders of Cisco Systems with regards to their plans to

establish an industrial park in Coyote Valley is the opposition of Environmentalists. According to the

Environmentalists against the project, "It would be an environmental disaster...in terms of air quality,

loss of wonderful agricultural land, and traffic," (Lawrence et al., 2008, p. 22) Had the Management

team at Cisco Systems used the issue management process to respond to the stakeholder challenges to

their plans, they may have been able to prevent the conflict described with these environmental activist

groups.

Cisco Systems has many options for addressing this issue of opposition by Environmentalist

activists. The following lists describes some of these options:

Respond quickly to the environmental groups

Work with these groups to address stakeholders' concerns

Begin discussions with these groups immediately to examine Cisco's practices and be open to

trying new approaches (such as ways to create a greener space with smarter building principles)

Learn from competitors who previously dealt with similar issues (such as Nortel and Lucent)

Demonstrate ways they support the environment


Predict and plan for possible attacks from these environmental groups and other organizations

(to be better prepared on defending its building practices and pinpointing susceptible areas)

Arrange to have building developers working with these environmental groups

Prove themselves as leaders in environmentally sound commercial development

Implement necessary changes; in particular, limited parking to force people to take transit,

more green space (ponds, trees and orchards, natural grasses), plan for a community feel

instead of "urban sprawl"

Hire a public relations firm to market these environmental policies to the public

By using the issue management process, Cisco Systems will be able to evaluate the options that

were identified above. They will be able to do this by following up with how these options are working

in practice. Cisco Systems must continue to assess these results and make any adjustments if need be.

Management must be aware that this is an ongoing process and they must continue to interact with all

of the stakeholders involved in the expansion process and continue to foster good working relationships

and focus on issues that matter.

Question 3

By analyzing the implications of the expansion, it demonstrates that Cisco Systems is responsive

to the issues and concerns of their stakeholders. In Question 2 above, I indicated that the

Environmental activists and their opposition was an issue that came into play with Cisco Systems plans

to establish an industrial park in Coyote Valley. The other secondary stakeholders (besides the activists)

that may be impacted directly or indirectly by the opposition are the general public and the community.

By truly listening to the environmental activists and working to smooth its unease regarding the

environment, Cisco Systems would have indicated not only to these Environmental groups but also to

the general public and community as a whole, that they really cared about their stakeholders' opinions.


Cisco Systems will have collaborated with these groups, will have shown teamwork and that the

reputation they were creating for themselves mattered. Primary stakeholders would also be impacted

indirectly by the opposition shown by the Environmental activists. The whole process of thinking ahead,

responding and formulating an action plan, would have given stakeholders like employees, stockholders,

suppliers and very importantly; customers, much more confidence in their dealings with this Company.

Part B: The Tobacco Industry

Smoking Cigarettes is Detrimental to Our Health and Health Care System

There are many health hazards that are caused by cigarettes. Almost everyone knows that

smoking and other tobacco use causes cancer. But did you know that it's also the leading cause of

coronary heart disease and emphysema? (Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, 1995) People are

becoming more and more aware of the health issues associated with smoking; but they don't seem to

be snubbing out the habit as quickly as one would expect. This is a preventable disease! Tobacco

related illnesses don't just affect the smoker; but it also causes health issues from secondary smoke

damage in an innocent person. As a result of the health issues caused from cigarette smoke; there is an

increase to the direct cost in the Canadian health care system.

The World Health Organization (WHO) provides an astonishing figure on their website (2010):

"half the people that smoke today - that is about 650 million people - will eventually be killed by

tobacco". Since tobacco is the fourth most common risk factor worldwide for disease; it comes as no

surprise that the economic effects of tobacco is devastating. WHO states that (2010): "not only is there

high health costs from treating these patients; but also since people are killed at a younger age, their

families miss out on income and the workforce loses out on healthy workers."


Essentially all Canadians are affected by the tobacco industry. Many Canadians have some form

of an interest or stake when it comes to addressing tobacco related illnesses and the burden that they

place on Canadian health care. The primary stakeholders influenced by this issue are as follows:

Tobacco farmers who produce these crops

Tobacco companies who manufacture the tobacco merchandise to provide a fix for addicted

users

Tobacco retailers who sell the tobacco merchandise to the public

The smokers who have become addicted to nicotine

Health Care providers and practitioners who must care for the people who become sick from

tobacco related diseases

There are also secondary stakeholders that are influenced by tobacco related illnesses and

health care costs:

Media/advertising - Tobacco companies presenting to the public: try to attract new users

(target markets: mainly youth), customer loyalty (keeping customers who already smoke), films

and magazines (show beautiful, thin people smoking to entice them), packaging (shiny foil, try to

make them look appealing). Also have government presenting to the public through the press

that smoking is harmful to our bodies and it kills

The general public who fund the care of patients who fall sick from first-hand and second-hand

smoke damage through our taxpayer dollars

Ministry of Health services who administers the funding for our health care

Educators and the research community who provide unbiased analysis and data for tobacco

related issues


Non-governmental organizations who are focused on decreasing smoking among Canadians (ex.

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Council for Tobacco

Control)

Non-governmental associations that rally support for smokers' and non-smokers' rights (ex.

Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Forces, Smokers Freedom Sig)

World Health Organization - an organization that acts as an international public health authority

Health Canada (Federal Government) who tries to reduce and prevent smoking and highlights

the negative health impacts from smoking

Environmentalist groups who believe that tobacco places a burden on our environment

Private health care which includes the pharmaceutical industry

I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked cigarettes during my life except for the occasional

experimenting in high school. As an adult and a parent of three young children, I feel that I am their role

model and I think that using tobacco products around children and young teens is irresponsible, and

that it shows them that it's socially acceptable to do the same. I would never want my children exposed

to second-hand smoke and it makes me angry when I see people smoking around children. I was so

happy to hear when the law came into place in B.C. that it is now illegal to smoke with children under

the age of 16 in a vehicle. I feel that if smokers want to smoke, that's fine. We all know it's bad, but

when it affects non-smokers; especially a child, it shouldn't be allowed. Kids don't have choices like the

parents do.

As a teenager, my steady job when I was going to college was working as a waitress in a local

restaurant. For the three years that I worked there, I was exposed to second-hand smoke. I wish that a

no-smoking ban had been in effect during that period of time. I don't like thinking that I was around all


that smoke when I worked there. I am glad that our province banned smoking in all indoor public and

work places which came into effect on March 31, 2008.

There are some groups and individuals who believe that a smokers' care should not be covered

under the Canadian health system. They argue that Canadians have known for a long time about the

health consequences of smoking and these people choose not to quit, so they should be responsible for

their actions and have to pay the price. Meaning, that they should pay for their own health care.

I do think people should be responsible for their own actions. But people put all sorts of

unhealthy things into their bodies. Whether it be in poor food choices, drinking, smoking or doing

drugs. These choices that we make can make people obese, alcoholics, chain-smokers and even drug

addicts. These patients are also putting a strain on our health care system. Should these people pay for

their own health care also?

A result of being overweight causes diabetes and heart disease from carrying the extra weight.

My father-in-law is considered obese with Type II diabetes and I wouldn't want to see him have to pay

for his own health care. He has an addiction to food just like other people who have addictions; they

can't control them. I think that paying for your own health care is ridiculous. If we are talking about one

set of people; such as smokers, paying for their own healthcare, we better be ready to make everyone

pay for their own healthcare.

A group that would agree with me on smokers not having to pay for their own health care would

be Forces International, www.forces.org. Their website states that this organization "is aligned with

those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive." (2010) They fight

for a human's personal choice and the right they have to smoke. This group would also rally behind the

tobacco industry and would deny any responsibility they might have.


Findings from "The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002" found on the Physicians for a

Smoke-Free Canada website (2010), show that health care costs directly related from tobacco use is

close to $3 billion just in hospital care alone. I would much rather see that $3 billion spent on other

illnesses mentioned above; such as heart disease and diabetes.

A main primary stakeholder in this issue is Canadian tobacco companies that are responsible for

nicotine delivery to their addicted users. As a tobacco industry executive, it is extremely important that

they be responsive to the issue of the costs of tobacco related illnesses on the Canadian health care

system. I'm sure that if I was an executive of a tobacco company, I would push the argument that

tobacco abuse is avoidable and therefore, the illnesses are preventable. I would also address the fact

that other health care can be considered personally inflicted; such as obesity and drug overdoses.

Other possible effective responses by the executives of a tobacco company on the issue of

tobacco related illnesses and the increase in costs to the Canadian health care system include:

Scan the environment to determine what the majority of the population believes are areas of

improvement by these companies (ex. quality and value?)

Scan the environment to determine what the population feels are positive aspects of these

companies and highlight this in the media

Scan the environment to determine counter arguments on this issue in global communities

Environmental scanning to determine population variables such as age, gender, marital status

and occupation to help assess the market and develop strategies to change (ex. lifestyle and

values?, what is the current trend?, have buying habits and needs changed?)

Tobacco industry employees could volunteer their time to local hospitals or other non-profit

health organizations


Monetary donations made to different organizations including the Cancer Society, Heart &

Stroke Foundation and other disease prevention groups

Monetary donations to youth prevention programs to catch them before they start smoking too

young

Support tobacco cessation among students

Provide funding to hospitals care units all over Canada

Decrease the amount of toxins that there are in cigarettes and produce more "light" smokes

Scan the environment to determine what products a large number of consumers would want

and produce them (current trend seems to be flavoured cigarettes)

Emphasize the positive impact that tobacco companies have to the economy (such as revenues,

number of employees that are employed in the industry and their wages that are paid)

Environmental scanning to determine what the public believes are the areas of improvement for

companies in the tobacco industry. This could include current issues or dilemmas that these

companies are facing.

A secondary stakeholder who plays a key role in this issue is the Canadian government. The

Government of Canada remains committed to working with people to prevent and reduce the use of

tobacco in Canada. Their role in the tobacco industry is especially important lately with all of the recent

restrictions placed on smoking cigarettes. A few of the restrictions in the past decade have been:

significant banning of all advertising, banning smoking in public places, banning tobacco displays and

signs at point-of-sale locations, and keeping the products covered or in a drawer. And the most recent,

smoking in vehicles with children under the age of 16, as mentioned above. By doing all of this, the

government is clearly showing the public that they are doing all they can to try and decrease cigarette

smoking in Canada.


As evidence began to show the harmful effects of smoking, health warnings came onto the

packages of cigarettes. These included ugly pictures of cancer infected organs to try and make people

think about what they are inhaling. Tobacco companies have been highly regulated with the banning of

all advertising. No longer can these companies advertise through any form of media. They have also

lost out on major publicity by the corporate sponsorship of various events.

Legislation is now in effect for all public indoor facilities to go completely smoke-free. This

would include previous popular smoking locations; such as pubs, restaurants, bingo halls, even while

people are on the job. Smokers must move at least three meters away from any doorway, window or

otherwise ventilated area.

In Canada, the Tobacco Control Act has discussed (but has not been legislated yet) that

Canadian homes are the next area to go completely smoke-free. I think that since smoking is legal, the

government can't control what we do in the privacy of our own homes. People should be able to do

what they want in their own homes. But I don't think keeping kids safe should be overlooked in the

issue; parents should not be smoking when their kids are around! I also think that if the government is

so concerned with second-hand smoke and what we are breathing in; then maybe they should be

worried about car emissions affecting everyone.

In addition to the restrictions and regulations the government places on the tobacco industry,

they also participate in World No Tobacco Day on May 31st of each calendar year. This shows the public

that they are committed to decreasing smoking in our country and worldwide.

Another way that the government has tried to get people to "butt-out" is through increasing the

price of tobacco products. The price of cigarettes varies among each province. According to the Non-

Smokers' Rights Association, the tax portion of a pack of cigarettes in June of 2002 averaged out to


71.6%. In a way, the government has required Canadian residents to fund part of their care if they fall

sick by greatly increasing the cost of tobacco!

Another big issue that the government is facing is the huge impact that smoking has had on our

environment. According to Health Canada, "During calendar year 2002, cigarette manufacturers

produced approximately 41.3 billion cigarettes, and sold roughly 40.7 billion." (HC, "Health Concerns",

Chap 2.2) Imagine that, almost 41 billion cigarette butts littering our environment. These butts must

take ages to biodegrade.

Some other issues that face the government are: the trees that are removed from land to grow

tobacco, wood that is needed from our earth to dry the tobacco before it is manufactured and the

pesticides are used to grow the tobacco. The tobacco is a large industry in Canada and tobacco growing,

producing and selling does provide a large stream of revenue for the government from the collection of

taxes. Even though the Canadian government must support economic growth; they must focus their

efforts on managing health care and the huge issue of tobacco, and the detriment to individual health

and the Canadian health care system.

The media is a secondary stakeholder that is influencing the issue of health care costs related to

tobacco related illnesses. The media's role in this issue is to communicate to the public on behalf of

tobacco companies and on behalf of the Canadian government. The media is an avenue that is being

used to provide smoking campaigns and anti-smoking campaigns to the population of Canada.

Advertising and promotion is a vital part of the tobacco industry's business effort. It helps

support the idea that tobacco is legitimate and a socially accepted product. Radio, TV and other forms

of media have affected smoking habits. But since our government has legislated an outright ban on the

advertising of tobacco products; Canadian media doesn't have the usual choice for industry-sponsored


communications versus government backed communications. The tobacco companies only choice to

have their voice represented is through news articles or press releases. Usually the news articles

provide negative publicity for the tobacco companies.

An example of some negative publicity that has been in the media recently is the court case of

two Canadian provinces suing tobacco companies for $80 million because these provinces need money

to cover smoking-related health costs. (NPR, 2009) It will take years for these cases to be finally settled

with these billion dollar empire tobacco companies fighting back.

One tobacco company that is affected by this lawsuit is Canada's largest producer, Imperial

Tobacco Canada. A visit to their website, www.imperialtobaccocanada.com, shows a press release

dated December 8, 2009 in which they have a partial victory over the lawsuit. It discusses that the

Federal government now might share blame with tobacco companies for these smoking-related health

costs. Since tobacco is legal in Canada, the government needs to stand behind these tobacco

companies.

Government communications in the Canadian media has unlimited assistance through Ministry

of Health (Health Canada) to battle rising health care costs related to smoking-related illnesses. There

are numerous anti-smoking organizations; such as the Canadian Cancer Society and Non-Smokers' Rights

Association. Since the majority of the perspective that the media in Canada is able to present to the

public is that of the government; it becomes clear that the media has had to join in the efforts to reduce

tobacco use and health care costs in Canada.


REFERENCES

Canadian Council for Tobacco Control. (2010). Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://www.cctc.ca/.

Elash, Anita. "Canadian Provinces Sue Tobacco Companies." (2009). Retrieved January 31, 2010, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113670571.

Forces International. (2010). Retrieved January 27, 2010. from http://www.forces.org.

Non-Smokers' Rights Association. (2002). "Global Cigarette Taxes and Prices (Canadian Dollars)" Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1200.

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. (Health Canada 1995). "Tobacco and the Health of Canadians". Retrieved on January 19, 2010, from http://www.smoke-free.ca/health/pscissues_health.htm.

Smoking and Health Action Foundation/Non-Smokers' Rights Association. "Eye on the Tobacco Industry: An Update on current Canadian tobacco industry activities." April - June 2009. Retrieved on January 18, 2010, from www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/pdf/Industry_update_2Qtr09.pdf.

"Why is tobacco a public health priority?" (2010). World Health Organization: Programmes and projects, Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI). Retrieved on January 23, 2010, from http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/index.html

www.imperialtobaccocanada.com

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/

admn 460 module 1 assignment

Documents