Happy Thanksgiving everyone, welcome back from break and welcome to finals! I had a good Thanksgiving; it was definitely really nice to be back home and have food that wasn’t TDR, and I look forward to going back in another twelve days.
Truthfully, I was really nervous about my group’s presentation in terms of time management and working around the break, but I’m really happy with how everything turned out. I also found this simulation to be a lot more engaging the last one, and I enjoyed researching Disney’s corporate responsibility. As the Disney Company, our focus was mainly on focusing on continuing the Disney brand of promoting culture and innovation, and inspiring individual innovation. As a large, profitable corporation engaged in multiple forms of philanthropy and charity work, I think Disney is in a good position to work with whatever resolution is decided. Our philosophy is based on supporting individual ingenuity in order to create better infrastructure and stronger communities, and given that Disney has the large profit margins to back up its plans, I don’t see any outcome where Disney is excluded from the resolution. Furthermore, Disney as both a charity and a hugely profitable company is able to appeal to a wide demographic, from Emma Watson the individual to the US Chamber of Commerce. As a whole however, I am curious to see how the class is able to come to a resolution. As PTJ mentioned in class, it’s typical for these types of intergovernmental meetings to be a mix of discussing the issues at hand and discussing the credibility and politics of various organizations. Our class discussion has stayed true to this pattern, but I can’t help but wonder why; for what purpose? While I acknowledge that the world is not ideal, and that my thoughts might come across as overly naive, I simply don’t understand why there has to be so much interorganizational politicking. Regarding sustainable development, I don’t understand why organizations feel the need to tear each other apart instead of working collaboratively for the goals that we, on paper, seem to share. Of course each organization has their own ideals and goals which are at times contradictory to other organizations, but can’t those be put aside in favor of common goals and actual resolutions? Does criticizing other organizations actually amount to anything productive? It’s interesting that within our Global Scholars group there was a lot of discussion about forming a complete coalition and creating a shared proposal even before class on Thursday. However, as soon as question time came for each group, we seemed to turn against one another and resort to petty discussion of the credibility of other organizations. Is this type of result inevitable even across common goals? Is there a way for this division and hostility to be prevented? Or if it can’t be prevented, how can we overcome it? As it is, Shell seems to be the main aggressor in criticizing other organizations (instead of the issue of sustainable development), and I haven’t yet figured out why. Would it not be easier to work with the other organizations and join the nascent coalition of everyone but Shell? What does Shell have to gain from directly criticizing other organizations and distancing itself? Or, while I can understand Shell’s hesitance with organizations like Oxfam, I don’t understand why Shell is so antagonistic towards Disney Company, even though we are not direct competitors. I’ll be interested to see what the last two groups have to say tomorrow, and I look forward to working on a joint resolution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|