Wednesday, October 31, 2012

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILE/CELLULAR PHONES

Governments should learn from the Charitable Recycling Programme

China has the highest number of cell phones with a whopping 634 million in 2008. India follows China with over 427.3 million in 2009. The third in line is the US with over 270 million handsets. Most amazingly, the number is exponentially increasing across regions, irrespective of the financial crisis. If not disposed off properly, these handsets are ticking time bombs as they contain toxic materials like copper, mercury, brominated flame retardants, lead, arsenic, and zinc. Even if they are dumped into landfill sites, the toxic substances would surely contaminate the ground water. It is imperative now to incorporate proper recycling programs involving different stakeholder groups, where the government machineries globally work hand in hand with manufacturers to ensure and fine irresponsible disposal of cell phones. Governments could take lessons from movements like the Charitable Recycling Programme of Canada, which encourage companies to motivate employees to handover their old phones to the programme. 


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Future of India?

What is more painful than the disasters that destroy everything is the lack of proper management to handle the aftermath. What can bring hope is in itself hopeless and raises real alarm bells, say ratan lal bhagat & niharika patra
 
Is it the beginning of the end of the world? Cynics, astrologers and self-proclaimed experts claim that the year 2012 would be the catastrophic year for mankind as the world would cease to exist. Hard to believe, right? Even Nostradamus, the man who saw tomorrow, wasn’t totally correct, thus no one knows what future has in store for us. But the past and the present happenings can definitely give inklings to the ultimate bearing. And with the world being fiercely struck and wrecked by continuous and increasingly frequent bout of disasters, both natural and man made, the fatal omen is more likely to be true. Well, as humans and more precisely individuals, it is not in our hands what the Almighty has decided for us. But we can surely do one thing, to prepare ourselves for the unknown and try and minimise the loss that comes with each disaster.

But in the list of all the uncertainties, one thing is getting more and more certain with every calamity that strikes. That India is going to be the epicenter of the downfall, if and when it strikes. Yes, the natural reasons are there but what makes India more prone is the lack of an efficient Disaster Management System. Whenever any thing happens, whether natural or man made, Indian system falls like a pack of cards costing billions in most of the cases. It is estimated that since 2000, India has suffered an economic loss of $18 billion because of 10 disasters.

Modern India has been battered and bruised by the world’s most severe droughts, famine, cyclones, earthquakes, chemical disasters, mid-air head-on air collisions, rail and road accidents, not to forget that it has been cornered from all directions with cross border terrorism. And what makes India more susceptible to risks is it’s geography. As per many geographic surveys; nearly 60% of the entire Indian landscape is susceptible to seismic damage in varying degrees. The scenario looks all the more grim when one takes into account the average area affected by floods every year. On an average about 8 million hectares of landscape is destroyed by flood. And of the nearly 7,500 kilometers long coastline, approximately 5,700 kilometers is vulnerable to cyclones while 68% of India is at risk of drought.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 29, 2012

Please get real about China

It is very rare for top Indian politicians holding important positions in government to bell the cat when it comes to China. When it comes to dealing with the dragon, the Indian tiger prefers to metamorphose into an ostrich. So what George Fernandes (then Defence Minister) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (then Prime Minister) said and wrote about China more than 10 years ago is actually a historical milestone in India’s strategic posturing. Defending the nuclear tests, both had cited China, rather than traditional foe Pakistan, as the real strategic threat to India. That brave departure from traditional meekness and whining soon melted away and was replaced by the usual “let’s not offend China” stance. This strategic confusion is painfully clear now as sections of Indian media go ballistic with reports of Chinese belligerence while our policy establishment tries damned hard to play things down.

Sure: this columnist is a neophyte compared to the myriad pundits who ponder, pontificate and preach over China. But like an ignoramus, let me ask two simple questions and frame them in a language that you and I can comprehend. First: Is China a strategic threat to India? Second: Can India do anything about it? If strategic threat means that Chinese troops will thunder down the Himalayas and capture Ladakh and Arunanchal Pradesh in a swift blitzkrieg before ponderous India can react, then that is indulging in fantasy. Mind you, as things stand today, the Chinese military can actually pulverize India – just as it did back in 1962. It is a different matter that party bosses sitting in Beijing will not take that decision since the ‘opportunity costs’ will be unacceptably high. So if there is no immediate military danger, how is China a strategic threat?

It really boils down to common sense. You cannot have two ‘dadas’ in a neighbourhood. As of today, China is the undisputable dada of Asia and will go to any extent (short of a nuclear attack or a military strike) to prevent India from emerging as a rival dada. Do remember, the real dada in this is America and it will go to any extent to ensure its dadagiri is unchallenged.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 28, 2012

“One of the Board Members could become my successor…”

Era of the Groomed Insider

The succession planning model that is followed at Infosys is very similar to the one that is followed in a century-old organization – General Electric.

Perhaps Thomas Edison, when he started GE, had never dreamt that one day, his organization would not only become one of the most respected in terms of technology but in terms of human capital cultivation as well. And when we mention GE, we definitely can’t miss Jack ‘Neutron’ Welch, who has mostly been discussed for his “20-70-10 rule” that ensured pink slips in lakhs by the time he had retired. But little do we know that he was the brains behind the hiring and succession planning program initiation at GE in 1994, much before he retired. The last time GE had a top leadership change (CEO) in 2000, was when Welch was replaced by Jeffery Immelt. The world knows that. But little do many know that there were three ‘internal’ candidates being groomed to fill the hot seat; besides Immelt, the two others were W. James McNerny (current CEO, Boeing) and Robert L. Nardelli (current CEO, Chrysler). It is known to many GE insiders that all three exceeded every expectation required for the right leader. And why not? All three of them attended sessions at the John F. Welch Leadership School at GE’s headquarters in Crontonville.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 26, 2012

Outliers!

Then, if Gladwell’s10,000 hour rule is about practicing one specific task for a considerable amount of time, does the corollary mean that companies that are focused on core businesses (focusing on limited specialized tasks) would perform better than diversified companies? Were C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel right all along? In December 2006, Heuskel, Fechtel and Beckmann of the Boston Consulting Group, in a massive global study covering hundreds of global corporations from 1996 till 2005, proved that shareholder returns of diversified companies beat both the stock market average and the shareholder wealth average of the majority of the core focused corporations. BCG writes that “there is no statistical correlation between (core) ‘focus’ and shareholder value.” When we analyse the B&E Power 100 listings this year on this parameter, we were in for a shock. Giving BCG a flyby, of the 100 companies we had, only one is truly diversified. 99 other companies focus on singular or very narrow streams of businesses. Even when we consider groups/promoters (e.g. Tatas, Birlas, Reliance) who own cross holdings in various companies, we could only reach 16 companies that belonged to diversified groups.

Out of 16 listed industries, a majority of our companies (61 of the B&E Power 100) belong to only four industries – financial services (30), metals and mining (11), oil and gas (10), real estate (10). Out of the same 16 sectors, only 3 have positive profits growth year on year – financial services (30%), information technology (12.9%) and FMCG (9.75%). All others have negative growth in profits, with oil and gas (-20.8%), pharmaceuticals (-32%) and real estate (-44%), killing the profits growth of the overall B&E Power 100, which stands at a measly 3.3% year on year.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PRICE GAME: OIL

Oil’s found between rocks!
 
While oil reserves in 2007 were around 1,184.208 billion barrels, they’ve gone up to 1,342.207 billion barrels in 2009. Despite increase in investments in alternative energy, these in reality might not be required at all. Researches under the new abiogenic theory contradict the age-old traditional theory that petroleum is derived from biogenic processes.

Iconic authors Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith explain in their cult novel, ‘Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil’ how the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource has been promoted to make America (and the world) a vulnerable society. And why’re the authors so important as to be quoted by the likes of National Geographic and Discovery? The abiogenic theory that they publicised – that oil is not just fossil fuel and also forms between granite rocks as well (ergo, will never run out) – is now completely supported by CERA, EIA and OPEC!
 

Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 25, 2012

At long last, a budget that has clearly placed first the agenda of people who have no lobbies!

 Not that it has done everything that had to be done for those who have been deliberately marginalised by the society now for decades and ignored just to fill the coffers of rich industrialists of India. But kudos that it has reached here at least. I, personally, and our media house have both been severely critical of budgets year after year. After presenting alternative budgets for nine years on the trot, I finally see a government that has at least had the courage to come out in the open and present a budget which hardly has any sops worth talking about for the industry. Yes, the advantages that a few industrial houses will derive haven’t gone unnoticed. But as I had written – with a lot of sarcasm and desperation – in our last issue: Let this budget be a ‘Khao Aur Khilao’ budget. And I won’t look at vested interests which got served here and there. I will only look at the good that has happened. After more than four years post the launch of Business & Economy and our media house, here is a budget for which I have first class marks! It surely deserves a 6 to 6.5 out of ten. Just for its vision and boldness to announce only social measures one after the other at the cost of getting the middle class upset. At the cost of stock markets registering their heaviest falls. At the cost of industrialists quietly having had to gulp down their disappointment and give TV bytes praising the budget – not because they realise the reasons why the budget is good, but really because they knew there was nothing to logically criticize it on.

Now let’s take a look at the details of the budget. Of all the rank bad budgets by the previous Congress terms – of course, with various kinds of external pressures – the only scheme that can be clearly considered their pet project that had Sonia, Manmohan and Rahul’s full support was the NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) scheme. And the best part of even this budget has been the huge 140 percent increase in NREGA allocations; and of course, the food guarantee scheme. The plan for providing direct subsidy to farmers is a very good move, coupled up with the concept of biometric unique identification cards. It’s a positive step towards removal of corruption.

This budget also sees a sense of gradual move towards strong reforms through the formation of the integrated energy act, shift in the fertilizer subsidy and efforts towards making domestic fuel prices move in sync with global prices. Further, another positive and super step towards removal of corruption in politics is the move to make all donations to political parties tax free. This would curtail donations in cash and make the system more transparent! For direct tax payers, the only real good news is that the incredibly silly and bureaucracy inducing FBT (Fringe Benefit Tax) has gone. Planman Media has been a very vocal and strong critic of the same since much earlier. At the same time, the increase in the minimum slab for income tax is so minimal that it gives absolutely no excitement. Either this ‘minimum’ should have been increased by 40k to 60k; or if not, could have remained the same! And on the corporate front, investments linked tax structure is a great improvement.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Some food for thought

100 days is too little time to provide food to the millions of hungry. Importantly, there is no point trying either.

Food security is again back in the news. After being used as tool to grab votes, now it appears as if the President of India too is keen on the fact that the subject is accorded high priority. However, it appears rather unrealistic that problems, which could not been solved in 62 years after the independence, can be settled within the first 100 days of this UPA government! But then, what is the hurry?

Already trouble is brewing up between the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture. The supply side would be a problem as within a time span of mere 100 days the things cannot be put into place. Besides, in its hurry the high-budgeted food security plan may (in all probability) would reach those who don’t need it and the needy people would be left, as usual, holding the can. There are other problems as well. The first is that the government is not yet decided as to whom it should target under the National Food Security Act. Data till 1996 shows that there are 360 million people living below poverty line (BPL). But since it is almost impossible to feed so many people at one go, the number of those covered would be 275 million. There is no consensus on how this figure was reached. As per the N. C. Saxena committee, which was formed to identify the numbers of BPL, the figures could be as high as 500 million. This coupled with the bottlenecks in the public distribution system, besides supply loopholes, makes it impossible for the food security plan to become successful.

But then it’s not the only problem?

The cost of implanting such a plan would be astronomical and there are no indications to an exact figure. Even the Finance Ministry has not offered any clues. As per sources Agriculture Ministry is looking at the Planning Commission to find a way out. It’s really sad that the three ministries involved do not have a clue.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Karnataka is a terrible way of solving the water crisis

The proposed privatisation of water supply in Karnataka is a terrible way of solving the water crisis. B&E explains why

At this juncture, including the Urban Development Minister Suresh Kumar and all top officials of the department are saying, “The private company will build, operate and maintain the project. Where as government will fix the tariff and there will be a regulatory authority to monitor”. They are giving assurances galore but there are still numerous doubts about the project. “We don’t want 24*7 water supplies from a private agency. Today government is giving assurance. But, how can we expect a private organisation taking social responsibility without profit?” asks a veteran journalist and resident of Hubli, M. Madan Mohan.

Privatisation of water supply is not a new phenomenon in the world. The ghost of Chochabamba is still haunting Bolivia and the world. During 2000, the Bolivian government handed over its water supply system to the subsidiary of corporate giant Bechtel Corporation, Agus del Tunari. As soon as Agus del Tunari took control of the system, water charges shot up. Within a month, all hell broke loose and people started protesting. Within a week, a state of emergency was declared in Chochabamba city. The Army was rushed to the city. But the civil unrest continued and at the end, the Bolivian government terminated the contract with Agus del Tunari and state again took over. On the basis of BOT (build, operate & transfer), few more water privatisation attempts were made in Vietnam, China and Malaysia. But in almost all the cases projects have either been abandoned or are in a mess.

Four years back even in New Delhi, the government tried for water privatisation. A French company Ondeo Degremont was handed over a project to design, build and operate the Sonia Vihar water treatment plant. That Rs.200 crore project was shelved after a strong protest by the public. Is that a solution for the growing water scarcity? Even today National Capital is reeling under water stress. Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is responsible for providing water to more than 1.6 crore population of the capital state. Daily demand in Delhi is 1,150 MGD (million gallons daily), where as DJB has a capacity of supplying 690 MGD. 100 MGD water comes from tube wells. Remaining 360 MGD is always a shortage. If the influx of the population continues in the same manner, Delhi will require 1,380 MGD of water every day by 2020. Will privatisation help to solve this problem? “No” says Kuljit Singh Chahal, State General Secretary, Swadeshi Jagaran Manch. Six years back Kuljit was one of the persons who strongly protested against the privatisation of water in Delhi. Speaking to B&E, he said “Drinking water supply is very sensitive issue and the society can’t afford to hand over it to private players. Here with the quantity, the quality of the water also plays a major role. In Delhi we are fed up with private companies, who are running the power supply projects. So, the distribution of water has to be in government’s hand.”


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 20, 2012

GEOPOLITICS: PAMPERING A MAN EATER

If Britain had stood up in Munich in 1938...

“There are many reasons people give for his appeasement including utter dismal spinelessness, that he was tricked by Hitler; that it was a dignified effort to put off carnage; that he was trading time for Britain to re-arm and many others. The problem is, while none of them is exactly true; all of them are partially,” says Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, British Military Historian and a Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, Whitehall while talking to B&E.

His appeasement led to several steps that ultimately culminated into World War II. His appeasement not only gave time to Britain to arm itself but also helped Hitler emerge stronger. It also strengthened Hitler’s resolve as he understood that he can do anything and get away with it. But it should also be kept in mind that Chamberlain’s action was in no way divergent from what common British thought of the situation. There was a prevailing notion in Britain that a brawny Germany would bring to a halt the expansion of Communist Russia. Many Briton argued that proceedings in Europe were not Britain’s business. Many sought peace. And last, a lot of them agreed with Hitler that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)