Customer Value

at
Categories
Tags

 

An important part of any organization’s priorities, as well as an important category of B Corp Certification, is the consideration of added value for customers. In this assignment, you will apply what you have learned about customer expectations and consider how it can be applied to your course project, which is due in Module Seven.

Prompt
You work in the operations department at NationaliTeas, a large international corporation that manufactures and sells tea worldwide. Based on customer feedback and a push to work toward B Corp Certification, the board of directors is looking for new initiative ideas that would increase value to customers. Examples include offering product guarantees, seeking product quality certifications, monitoring customer satisfaction, and so on. You have been asked to outline two customer-focused initiatives that can be evaluated by impacted teams for feasibility.

Specifically, you must address the following:

Added Customer Value: Briefly describe the added value your initiative idea brings to customers. Use supporting evidence from course materials in your response.
Added Business Value: Briefly describe the added value your initiative idea brings to the organization. Make sure to note the impact of the added customer value on the business, and use evidence from the course materials to support your response.
Potential Resources: Identify resources that would likely be needed to complete the initiative. In this case, resources might refer to the amount of funding, the materials available, the allocation of employees and their time, and so on.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Briefly describe how the success of the initiative would be monitored over time and how you’d evaluate the criteria for success.

Sample Solution

First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully

This question has been answered.

Get Answer