Nissan to build new models in the UK (blog 3)

Nissan to build new models in the UK

Nissan one of the worlds leading car manufactures has said today that it will produce the new model of its Qashqai SUV at it's Sunderland plant, as well as the X-Trail SUV which is currently made in Japan. For me personally this is great news, I have friends and family who work for the company and after Brexit there was a huge shadow of doubt which was cast over the plant, many people thought that Nissan would simply uproot and move it's production to another country such as France or Japan, however this news will be viewed as a massive positive for the area by keeping thousands of workers employed but also by allowing younger people to achieve something when opportunities are few and far between.

From growing up in the North East of England I can personally tell you as a whole it is a poverty stricken area and has been for many years there's no denying that, however with substantial investment from Nissan they have now taken over the pit and ship yards as the leading form of industry in Sunderland, becoming the lifeline for many people to get out of poverty and actually earn a decent living. It is the first UK investment decision by an international carmaker since the Brexit vote in June and was made following assurances from the prime minister to Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn that the company would be protected from its impact. I believe that this is a really powerful message and through Nissan kickstarting this investment stage that hopefully many other businesses in a variation of fields will soon follow, not only providing investment in the London and Manchester etc. but actually creating a proper so called "Northern Powerhouse" which goes the extra 140 miles beyond Manchester to Sunderland and it's surrounding neighbouring cities... 

The Nissan factory in Sunderland is the largest car plant in the UK, it produces over 500,000 cars a year and employs over 7000 people, that is not to mention the other companies which support Nissan in the building and manufacturing of parts such as Unipress. The vast opportunities of work that Nissan can offer are specifically why people look into apprenticeships or full time work as soon as they leave school, many of my friends who didn't wish to carry on education at college full time have gone on to an apprenticeship at Nissan in which they earn good money for an apprentice and gain qualifications which can allow them access to university or allow them to progress higher in the industry. This was also a temptation I faced when choosing to go to university or not. However I feel that going to university will open the door to many businesses such as Nissan and allow me to reach a higher level then my friends who are on the line everyday. The expansion of the Sunderland plant has been supported due to the plant running three shifts around the clock, the second line only has two so may need to add a third, this shows support from Nissan and is an encouraging sign that more workers will be hired.

I understand that there was a real threat that Nissan may end it's production work at the Sunderland plant and move elsewhere, prior to the Brexit vote Nissan stated that if the UK were to leave the EU then so would Nissan as tariff costs would be too high to export goods, however after reassurances from the Prime minister, Mr Ghosn has described Sunderland as a “European plant based in Britain”. Showing support for Sunderland and the continual manufacturing of products at this plant which will supply the rest of Europe.

Let me know if your area faces similar problems due to the Brexit vote below.

https://www.ft.com/content/eabd6152-9c29-11e6-8324-be63473ce146

Inside John Lewis (practise blog)

Inside John Lewis (Practise Blog)

Through the documentary "Inside John Lewis" I can clearly gain an understanding of how they have been one of Britain’s biggest and best known department stores for over 100 years, this documentary shows the company taking on new contemporary issues such as changing tastes and tougher competition whilst also explaining how they have battled the worst recession for 80 years. When looking into John Lewis I found a company which was much more than just a brand, John Lewis is part of people's lives, I came to this conclusion through the video in which "partners" is a commonly used phrase compared to an employee by senior members of staff. However when partners were interviewed they expressed some concern over their future, stating how John Lewis was a job for life and now there is a sense of unease.

I personally believe John Lewis have had some very important and crucial decisions to make, kick started by the recession. The main issue the company faced was the increase in costs this is primarily due to the recession and its knock-on effects, this means the purchasing of products has increased so therefor this will impact on the company's profit. This drastic reduction in profit by nearly 50% is what lead to John Lewis making some pf its employees redundant, now this for John Lewis was never heard of before, most employees thought of John Lewis as a job for life but they are now questioning this. In my opinion I feel this has major repercussions mainly involving the name of the brand and the reputation it holds, this could be tarnished if partners are concerned about the safety of their job. This is concern is shown in the documentary as David Jones the director of Partner Welfare explains how when partners were surveyed on statements such as "I feel secure in my job." partners average score dropped from 17 points to 10 points, showing concern around pay and security of their jobs.

However I also fully understand where Andy Street, the managing director of John Lewis and businessman, is coming from in the challenging times of a recession. His job is to ensure John Lewis turns its losses into profit and he has to make some decisions which some people may not like, perfectly summed up in the documentary as he says "Leadership is about making smart decisions even though they may not be the most popular ones." showing how he is thinking of the future of the business even though it may have a negative effect on certain aspects in the short term.

The main positive which came out of the documentary I felt was the expansion of one of John Lewis' lesser known areas, fashion. The recession allowed John Lewis to look into other areas of the company which were behind the times and needed a revamp. This was a perfect opportunity for growth and something Andy Street would have focussed upon, this is what lead to the building of the John Lewis store in Cardiff, the biggest John Lewis store in Wales. It cost a total of £35 million and took 8 weeks to build, during this time head office recruited experts in the field of fashion and focussed on revamping the John Lewis look which was outdated and lacked appeal to certain target audiences. Another positive of the Cardiff store was the introduction of "flexible knowledge" this involved a partner being an expert in more than one area so when certain departments were busy other could cover with he demand, this was first introduced into the Cardiff store but since has been expanded to all of the John Lewis stores. 

However I also feel that John Lewis have let down some of their partners who have potentially been at the company for up to 40 years, this commitment to the brand is what lead to John Lewis earning its reputation of looking after their partners and giving them added extras. The recession allowed for growth in the fashion departments but may have come at a cost of some partners in other departments where the demand was no longer needed.

If I were in the position of Andy Street I wouldn't have done anything different, out of a total of 1000 partners 40 were made redundant so the scale of jobs created to jobs lost allows for the pros to outweigh the cons. He had the vision to take John Lewis forward by looking at areas which could develop and thrive in todays society, altering the look and style of their fashion department was a major influence which allowed them to keep up with the times just like other high end retails stores. He also looked at the idea of downsizing, opening smaller more specialist stores for electronics and homeware products in smaller towns and cities so everyone had access to John Lewis' products, allowing the company to maximise profits and increase their sales. 

Overall when looking at all the factors I believe John Lewis is in a much better place than it was at the start of the recession,  the correct personal were hired to take the company forward and revitalise the John Lewis brand, with out them the company may have crumbled and may not even exist today.

BAE to build governments nuclear submarines (blog 1)

Financial Times Blog: BAE gets funds to start building new submarines

In this week I have read an article online through the Financial Times' website on how the government have released a £1.3 billion plan for the first initial stage of the "Successor Nuclear Deterrent Programme." This basically is a £1.3 billion contract which has been awarded to BAE Systems who will be starting the new manufacturing work on a new class of submarines. Now since we are supposedly in times of cut backs the government will set a budget of a whopping £41 billion, for the building of  these 4 new Royal Navy submarines.

The main focal point of this article which concerns me is the dispute it is currently causing in the labour camp, this is mainly due to the anti-nuclear campaigner Jeremy Corbon, who also happens to be the leader of the Labour Party. In a time where we are set to be moving away from nuclear weapons the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated "We cannot know what new dangers we might face in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s so we are acting now to replace them." showing to me a blatant divide in the camp. The other main issue in my eyes is where else this money could be spent.

I believe that when looking at this particular area there are a few issues which can be contradicted in multiple ways, firstly I totally agree that the U.K needs to have some form of military protection because obviously without it we would be totally defenceless and open to invasion, nuclear weapons haven't been discussed as an issue for over 50 years yet somehow they have remained a hidden agenda which is rarely spoken about. The use of nuclear weapons by countries in the far east has caused Britain and her allies to fight against the regimes which own them, yet I'm just a tad confused as we are sat developing ours and actually investing heavily in nuclear warfare through the manufacturing of these new submarines.

I also feel that due to the vast amount of money which is being used to develop these weapons- because ultimately that's what they are, this funding could be used for other areas which the government has actually neglected, areas such as the NHS, public sector workers or a revamp of the education system could all be potential candidates for the excessive money which is being thrown around here. (With my mam working as a Nurse and my dad as a Civil Servant, you could say I'm not necessarily all for this decision.)

However BAE systems are contributing something worthwhile to the economy as it is estimated that by the early 2020's BAE Systems will employ some 5000 workers across the MoD, this total will rise to 7,800 new jobs as the development of the programme continues, but the real question on my mind is "will it all be worth it?" I feel that with the political might of Russia and conflict in the middle east, all of this could be coming at the wrong time, potentially provoking some countries into an armed response.

When looking in the grand scale of things this revamp of the nuclear programme was always going to happen, with the world we live in today developing and evolving more and more, we as a nation have to keep up with these constant changes. This is backed up by other outside factors such as Brexit and the way other countries act politically and actively (not mentioning any names *cough cough* Russia). Brexit now means that the U.K has independence from Europe and can now follow its own protocol when it comes to military action, the Successor programme will allow us to adequately defend ourselves against Russia alongside other countries who the rest of Europe all seem to fear.    

Overall I can see the reasoning behind this new programme, however I can also see the problems it may cause at home and around the world. Ultimately it will defend our nation and provide safety for the people of Britain, however it could also cause unrest with other nations, along with people in the U.K. Knowing 6% of the budget is being spent on just 4 submarines may not go down too well with everyone. Let me know how you feel about this topic below.

https://www.ft.com/content/594fdcd2-87ce-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731

Cadbury's business nightmare (blog 2)

Business Nightmares with Evan Davis: Cadbury's

In this week I have watched a video in which several of the worlds leading companies have come under some scrutiny as they have created some enormous strategic errors which have cost the company, investors, the government and even the tax payer billions. The first business to come under pressure to adapt to the 21st century's rapidly deteriorating health problems was Cadbury's, this primarily confectionary based company was first questioned over its role in keeping Britain's children healthy in 2003. 
I feel you can't help but look at Cadbury's and know it was always going to end badly for them, the then sports minister Richard Caborn raised the issue of what confectionary companies could do to aid in the decline of obesity in the youth of Britain, they deliberately targeted Cadbury's as it is the largest manufacturer of chocolate and confectionary products in the U.K. It's clear to me that the government were out to get them from the start and in the heat of the moment Cadbury's response was one which looked promising, however hindsight is a wonderful thing and in reality Cadbury's had an absolute nightmare.

When I think of chocolate I automatically think of Cadbury's, basically the perfect company to reach out to the younger generation (the age group which the government were most concerned about.) The agreement Cadbury's came to stated that "with every £8 which is spent on Cadbury's products, £1 of sports equipment would be provided to schools or sports programmes, all that was needed was the empty wrapper of the chocolate bar." Even when I read that statement I thought "okay then that seems fair enough" it also seemed like an excellent idea for Cadbury's (bearing in mind they're a confectionary manufacturer) to be shown in the media in a positive light, fighting the battle against obesity, but then also allowed the company to promote more products and basically increase their sales revenue.

However I feel the main issue for Cadbury's arose as they released a list of figures prior to the campaign, the figures corresponded to the amount of chocolate bar wrappers which needed to be returned in order to get a piece of sports equipment. It would take 170 chocolate bars in order to receive a single basketball, 170! This equated to a single child performing 90 solid hours of exercise just to burn the calories off. I'm personally no health expert but what Cadbury's were basically doing was "fighting obesity with chocolate" and just couldn't see the bigger picture. 

After watching the video I feel that Cadbury's did have the right intentions but they just didn't deliver them in the right way. As a business who is effectively aiding in the problem of obesity, it was always going to be a task to try to change their label or brand image. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place as changing their ingredients could have lead to a rapid decrease in sales, altering the brand packaging would again have the same effect. So I believe there was actually very little which could have been done to combat this monumental problem they faced.

The good side to this experience from Cadbury's was that they at least were shown to make an effort and attempted to tackle the problem which now faces the entire world, however I feel there are many numerous bad points based on how Cadbury's dealt with the situation. 
Firstly they came up with an idea which everyone involved with (even the government) thought was THE best idea since sliced bread. Another problem was the line of industry the company is in, the confectionary industry is obviously a line of work which involves certain ingredients which shouldn't be consumed in high volumes, the campaign Cadbury's set up basically looked at encouraging families to go out and buy more of their products in order to contribute to the community and an overall goal of increasing exercise in school children. Finally the last issue which Cadbury's caused for themselves was the length of time they ran the campaign before finally admitting defeat and shutting down the campaign. Over an 8 month period they faced countless newspaper, online and television reports which crucified them in the media, it caused negative publicity and hampered the name of the company. Essentially the campaign actually went against all of the things it stood for. In my opinion if they were to end the campaign as soon as they received criticism, the damage impact would have been less severe and wouldn't have impacted on the business as much as it did.

Overall in the grand scheme of things, this catastrophe won't actually change my mind on chocolate and I will no doubt carry on choosing to eat it, to me chocolate is chocolate at the end of the day and it's just like anything else,  if you consume it in large quantities it's obviously bad for you.

If you were Cadbury's what would you have done different? Let me know below.