In Order To Protect Dairy Farmers The Canadian Government

1in Order To Protect The Dairy Farmers The Canadian Government Has A

1. In order to protect the dairy farmers, the Canadian government has assured the provinces it will pay compensation to cheese producers, and that it will set up a marketing campaign for local cheese. This is essentially a government subsidy to dairy farmers. Explain why the Canadian Government should and should not play the role of guardian of business in this way.

2. Briefly identify the nature of economic, competitive and technological forces of change in organizations.

3. Consider an organization which you are familiar with either as an employee or a customer. Provide us with the name of the organization and what it does. Then tell us how you would implement sustainable practices across this organization. Your response should cover the following departments: Finance and Accounting, Human Resources, Marketing, Information Technology, and Operations.

Paper For Above instruction

The Canadian government’s intervention to support dairy farmers through payments and marketing campaigns exemplifies a broader debate about the role of government as a guardian of business interests. While such subsidies and promotional efforts can stabilize the agricultural sector, protect livelihoods, and enhance local food security, they also raise critical questions about market distortions, dependency, and favoritism. This essay explores the rationale behind and against government intervention of this nature, highlighting economic principles, ethical considerations, and policy implications.

Supporters argue that government subsidies to dairy farmers are justified under the premise of market failures, such as externalities or information asymmetries, and the need to stabilize rural economies. For example, dairy farming is often characterized by high fixed costs, market volatility, and exposure to international trade fluctuations. In such cases, government support can provide a safety net, ensuring the sustainability of agricultural livelihoods and preserving cultural heritage associated with traditional farming practices. Moreover, in regions where dairy farming is a significant economic activity, government-led campaigns promoting domestic cheese production can bolster local industries, reduce reliance on imported goods, and foster national pride.

Nevertheless, opponents contend that such intervention distorts free markets by artificially inflating prices and subsidizing inefficiency. This can lead to overproduction, decreased competitiveness, and higher consumer prices. Furthermore, reliance on government support may discourage innovation and productivity improvements within the dairy sector, creating a dependency syndrome. From an ethical perspective, government favoritism towards specific industries can also be viewed as an unfair allocation of public resources, especially if it disadvantages imported goods or competitors operating without similar aid. Critics emphasize that market forces, driven by consumer preferences and technological advancements, are better suited to allocate resources efficiently in the long run than government subsidies.

The debate about whether the government should act as a guardian of business involves balancing economic stability with market efficiency. In some cases, government intervention may be necessary to correct market failures, support vulnerable sectors, and promote social objectives. However, excessive or poorly targeted interventions risk creating distortions, inefficiencies, and a misallocation of resources. A nuanced approach, combining targeted support with policies encouraging innovation, competition, and open markets, may serve as a more sustainable strategy to foster economic growth and resilience.

Turning to organizational change, economic, competitive, and technological forces are key drivers shaping business environments. Economic forces such as inflation, interest rates, and economic cycles impact organizational strategies, influencing investment, pricing, and cost management. Competitive forces, characterized by industry rivalry, new entrants, and changing customer preferences, compel organizations to innovate and differentiate their offerings. Technological forces, including digital transformation, automation, and data analytics, enable organizations to improve efficiency, enhance customer engagement, and develop new capabilities. Understanding these forces is vital for organizations to adapt proactively and sustain competitive advantage.

Consider a familiar organization, such as a local retail chain. To implement sustainable practices, I would focus on several key departments:

In Finance and Accounting, I would promote investment in energy-efficient infrastructure, sustainable supply chains, and waste reduction initiatives. This includes developing reporting systems that track environmental impacts and costs savings from sustainable practices.

In Human Resources, I would foster a culture of sustainability through employee training, incentivizing waste reduction, and encouraging eco-friendly practices. Promoting diversity and well-being also aligns with corporate social responsibility.

Marketing strategies would emphasize the organization’s commitment to sustainability, building brand loyalty among environmentally conscious consumers. Transparency through sustainability reports and campaigns can enhance reputation and customer engagement.

In Information Technology, implementing digital tools for supply chain management, energy monitoring, and remote work can reduce the organization’s carbon footprint and increase operational efficiency.

Operations would include adopting sustainable sourcing policies, waste management strategies, and resource-efficient logistics. Incorporating renewable energy sources and eco-friendly packaging further supports sustainability goals.

Overall, integrating sustainable practices across all departments requires strategic planning, stakeholder engagement, and continuous improvement, aligning economic viability with environmental and social responsibility.

References

• Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1971). The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge University Press.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
• Reinhardt, F. L., Stavins, R. N., & Vietti, J. (2019). Climate Change and the Economics of Sustainable Development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 161–179.
• Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall.
• Grant, R. M. (2019). Contemporary Strategy Analysis (10th ed.). Wiley.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Free Press.
• Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing.
• World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Supply Chains: Risks and Opportunities. White Paper.
• World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development.
• Oxley, J. E., & Sambamurthy, V. (2017). The Impact of Technology on Modern Organizational Dynamics. Journal of Business Strategies, 26(4), 55–63.