Business

Economic Underperformance, Excessive Indebtedness, and Our Constrained Future

With last week’s federal deficit announcement, it is now more important than ever that we acknowledge our current realities with detail and clarity. We otherwise will be unable to develop a believable and effective path forward in the post-COVID world. The problem is that our current realities are uncomfortably negative. Many of us just don’t want to see this or believe it. We were in a slow-moving crisis of competitiveness, investment, and productivity prior to the COVID lockdown. Now, we have both stagnant productivity and excessive levels of debt. This feels negative as most of us understandably want to feel positive and optimistic about our future.  However, for optimism to be real it must be grounded in reality. It is only then we can develop a believable and inspiring vision, and the appropriate strategies to recover and rebuild our economy.

Prior to the COVID lockdown, the economic fundamentals in Canada were already grim:

As a Canadian, if you were fortunate enough to accumulate savings, the last thing you should have done is to invest in Canadian companies on Canadian stock exchanges.

We were in a state of investment, competitive, and economic underperformance before the pandemic-related collapse. “Going back to normal” or “the way things were” is going back to a set of conditions that were compromising the future for all Canadians.

And now, we have the added reality of excessive debt. The inevitable consequence is a loss of financial flexibility, less capacity to spend, and more financial risk in the event of an extended recession, additional intermittent lockdowns, or some other new, unforeseen crisis.

Although the financial position of our federal government was reasonable going into the COVID lockdown (debt to GDP ratio was 35%), this has all changed seemingly overnight.

With a $350 billion deficit, we are now adding about 15% to the debt to GDP ratio. Maybe this still doesn’t look too alarming, however, we are missing a large part of the picture if we ignore the provinces.

We have learned in crisis that the national government will be called upon to backstop the credit demands of all provinces, and to a certain extent, even corporate and household debt.

Ontario’s debt is now about $400 billion, Quebec $200 billion, and then there are the other provinces. The Western provinces, including Manitoba, are now close to approximately $150 billion. The Atlantic provinces represent another $50 billion in debt. If you’re keeping track, that’s $800 billion of provincial debt combined with now over $1 trillion of federal debt. Total “all in” government debt is now at least $1.8 trillion and heading towards $2.0 trillion which would be 100% of GDP – that represents over $50,000 for every man woman and child in Canada, or $200,000 for a household of four.

Analysts and economists tend to look at debt solely on the basis of decision-making authority and responsibility at the entity level, as this is where insolvency would occur. This is why most don’t aggregate debt. But aside from insolvency risk, the key problem with debt that’s often overlooked is how it constrains choice and optionality. The aggregation of choice and commitment drives our overall economy. Understanding our economic outlook requires accounting for the burden of debt across all decision-making entities.

The government debt described above is layered on top of consumer and corporate debt. Total consumer debt in Canada is at a record $2.3 trillion which includes $1.6 trillion of mortgages. Household debt to disposable income is now at a record high of 181%.

Corporate debt in Canada is also at record levels of about $2.4 trillion and based on the Bank of International Settlements, our corporate debt service ratio is among the highest in the world.

Total household, corporate, and government debt is about $7.0 trillion. This is 350% on a $2 trillion economy.

The one thing we know about debt is that if you can survive through a downturn, it will constrain choice; it will constrain the scope and flexibility of decision-making commitments. This will be the new reality for many decision makers across the entire economy.

You can reasonably expect that consumers and corporations will be spending less and repairing balance sheets, and governments at all levels will be forced to be more accountable and discerning in spending and borrowing. All of this will likely be a net drag on the economy for years.

Unfortunately, this is all happening at the same time that Canada’s GDP per capita and labour productivity have been lagging.

The issue of productivity must be emphasized. To quote Nobel Laureate economist, Paul Krugman:

“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker.”

Canada is now in an era of both stagnating productivity, low competitiveness, and excessive levels of indebtedness. In the corporate investment world, we often describe this as a “strategic straightjacket” – with less choice and less freedom to move. All of this should encourage a reset in priorities towards fiscal constraint, incentivizing investment, and pursuing more business-friendly policies and strategies that will tilt towards increasing innovation, productivity, and prosperity.


Author

Mac Van Wielingen

What Drives Organizations? Applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Corporations

In 1943, Abraham Maslow published his theory on the hierarchy of needs. You have probably come across it at some point in your life. Maslow used the terms "physiological," "safety," "belonging and love," "social needs," and "self-actualization" to describe the linear ascension of human motivation. According to Maslow, human beings are motivated to satisfy basic physiological needs such as food and water before they can progress to the next level of needs for safety, belonging, social acceptance, and self actualization. The further removed the individual is from simply obtaining the necessities of life, the less anxiety and tension is present as they seek to fulfill higher functions of personal growth. The pursuit of these functions is critical to the advancement of innovation as the individual is liberated to focus on the needs of others once their own necessities have been fulfilled.

The arc of Maslow’s theory closely aligns with the needs of corporations.  From a legal perspective, American corporations have been granted many of the same rights as individuals under the 14th amendment of the Constitution (See 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road). Over the past 130 years, corporations have evolved into legally distinct beings that enjoy many rights normally reserved for individuals such as the right to own property, enter into contracts, or pursue legal action. If corporations possess many of the same legal rights that individuals do, it stands to reason that corporations also share a hierarchy of motivations that begin with their basic need of survival.      

The International Monetary Fund is forecasting that the U.S. and Canadian economies will shrink by 8.0% and 8.4% this year because of COVID-19 related shutdown. As these effects hit corporate balance sheets, many executives have been forced to take extraordinary measures to keep their businesses solvent. corporate leaders are shifting their focus to satisfy the company’s basic ‘physiological’ needs for cash flow, liquidity, and debt coverage at the expense of higher corporate aspirations. The abrupt departure of these aspirations is particularly problematic when viewed in the context of environmental stewardship. As Maslow’s work highlights, the greatest advancements in corporate innovation are likely to occur beyond the base levels of sustenance. As corporations mortgage future development to sustain existing operations, critical ESG commitments, research, and technologies are less likely to come to fruition.

According to Bloomberg, climate change-related talk on S&P500 earnings calls fell from 33% in Q1 to just 17% in Q2 as Companies re-tooled their corporate strategies to focus on the fiscal necessities of survival. This is strong evidence that higher corporate functions are a luxury of choice – ones that are only possible if the basic corporate needs of survival are met. Therefore, stakeholders should celebrate Companies that remain steadfast in their commitment to environment, social, and governance standards in the face of a global pandemic. This praise is warranted because corporate ESG commitments confirms the importance of these factors to the survival of their business. These corporate leaders do not view ESG as a luxury of choice or a higher corporate function, but rather as a fundamental cornerstone to the success of their business.

As noted by Bloomberg, discussions regarding the acceleration of the climate crisis dropped by 50% on average across every industry in the S&P 500 earnings call transcripts from Q1 to Q2 2020. The largest pull back was seen by Technology Companies (53%), Financial Services (69%), and Energy Companies (58%). Energy Companies touted their energy transition goals earlier this year, but unsurprisingly this rhetoric has dwindled and has been replaced with urgent discussions regarding production cuts, liquidity, and plummeting demand. What may be surprising are the industries that have managed to keep ESG commitments front-of-mind during coronavirus-dominated earnings calls. As noted by Bloomberg, “Sustainability talk in the utility sector did decline in the first quarter, but only by 31%. The drop at industrial companies was just 10%”.

Earnings call transcripts are a way for management to communicate corporate priorities directly to shareholders.  While a pull back of long-term initiatives is inevitable as Companies focus on the short-term realities of survival, the degree of pull back could signal the level of commitment of Companies towards environmental stewardship in the long-term. The next time you are looking through the earnings call transcripts of Companies you have invested in make a point to quickly scan through previous transcripts prior to the pandemic to see which Companies are still including language outlining their ESG ambitious and what resources they will be dedicating to achieve those objectives.


Author

Michael Hebert, Viewpoint Research Team

Report: Alberta CEO Survey on Shutdown Impacts and Future Recovery

What does the road to recovery look like for Albertan businesses?

In collaboration with the Business Council of Alberta, we surveyed 61 CEOs to find out the impacts of COVID-19 on business, and what barriers and challenges lie ahead.

HERE'S A FEW HIGHLIGHTS

1 in 4 companies are unsure if they will make it through the pandemic until a vaccine is developed.

61% have engaged in layoffs, and 18% do not expect to refill these positions.

34%  anticipate needing continued or additional government support to mitigate downsides like stimulating demand, providing clarity on health and safety regulations, and maintaining liquidity.

To read the full results, download the report below.


Author

Viewpoint Research Team in collaboration with Business Council of Alberta

What Does Canada Need to Jump Start Innovation?

Despite having one of the most diverse workforces in the world, Canada was ranked 14th in the 2019 OECD Global Competitiveness Report; dropping two spots from the previous year, and scoring below the United States, Denmark, and Korea. Although we receive strong rankings in macro-economic stability (1st), sound financial system (9th), and labour market (8th), we have lagging performance in innovation (16th) and adoption of technology (35th). What is Canada missing? 

To start, we could look to the country who has lead on innovation and start-up culture, earning themselves the title of “Start-Up Nation” - Israel. Though there are many different factors that may contribute to its success in innovation, one large factor is Israel’s government initiatives focusing on developing knowledge, supporting research and development, and prioritizing the creation and long-term survivability of start-up businesses. In the past, government initiatives were created to subsidize research and development projects, and to bolster venture capital interest through tax incentives and matching investments, hoping to share and mitigate the risk to investors. This fostered collaboration between not only academic institutions and private organizations, but also across local and global organizations. However, it should be noted that these initiatives are not without flaws, as the policies have been geared to high-tech industries, and consequently “other sectors seem to have been left out.” 

These initiatives paved the way for the creation of the Israel Innovation Authority, an independent publicly funded agency, which provides support and incentives to entrepreneurs across different divisions like technological infrastructure, international collaboration, and societal challenges. The reverse innovation model is used, whereby organizations are encouraged to pitch real issues to entrepreneurs, and these entrepreneurs come to solutions by “understanding the challenge first, and then working backwards…[t]his promotes the formation of joint ventures (sometimes between competing firms) to address them.”  

Overall, the takeaway is that government-led initiatives signaled confidence to investors and laid the groundwork for a venture capital friendly environment that both corporations and research institutions were able to participate in. For Canada to break through as a powerhouse in innovation and remain competitive on a global scale, we need thoughtful government-led initiatives that promote innovation across industries.


Author

Viewpoint Research Team

What Surprising Factor is Behind Canada’s Economic Growth?

Family enterprises play a crucial role in the Canadian economy. A recently published report suggests that family enterprises are the most powerful driver of economic growth in Canada, generating $574.6 billion – which is almost half of Canada’s private sector GDP – and almost seven million jobs in 2017. This “first-of-its-kind” study in Canada was a collaboration between the Conference Board of Canada and Family Enterprise Xchange. This research helps us to better understand “[t]he economic impact of family owned enterprises in Canada.”

Family businesses exist in all sectors and communities, from the local farmer and restaurant owner, to international companies in agriculture, communications, and retail. “Family enterprises produce nearly 7 million jobs in Canada. Empirical research also confirms that these businesses account for approximately 65 per cent of the output and 90 per cent of the jobs generated by small and medium-sized companies, which are frequently described as the backbone of the Canadian economy and are essential to our supply chains.” Additionally, “[n]early 2/3 of all private sector firms in Canada are family owned.” 

Not only do family enterprises create jobs, invest in their communities, and give back to society, but it seems that they may experience more success than other firms. Family enterprises were also found to have longer growth and longevity than other firms, with total revenues growing 14.6 percent on average from 2007 to 2013. In contrast, other firms grew 13.9 percent on average during this same period. Of the firms that were operating in 2007, around 70 percent of the family enterprises were still in operation in 2013, compared to 65 percent of the other firms. Moreover, a  2018 study by the National Bank of Canada suggests that “family-controlled businesses demonstrate an ability to yield long-term returns over the span of generations.” They concluded that their sample of “family-controlled businesses from different industries and regions across the country outperformed the S&P/TSX Composite Index by 120.3% over a 10-year period.” 

Although the reasons why family firms achieve these successes are not well understood, experts believe that enduring family firms share common traits – such as long-term orientation and an ability to adapt – that allow them to stand the test of time better than non-family companies. 

“Over time, greater knowledge of family firm dynamics will help us to understand the unique challenges that these businesses face, and by extension their consequences for the broader economic base. And that in turn will facilitate improved educational support for family enterprises themselves.” Further, perhaps by identifying what enables these family enterprises to experience increased success, other organizations can also benefit from focusing on these same characteristics. 


Author

Karen Macdonald and Viewpoint Research Team

Of Purpose and Profit

This month in Davos, Switzerland, CEOs from around the world were talking about one thing: a letter sent by Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. It stirred controversy among many attendants at the World Economic Forum, proselytizing that pursuing purpose over profits is the key to unlocking the full potential of any business. Why should businesses need to worry about anything other than profit? Many would argue that financial growth is all that should drive a business. What could be more important?

It’s a question that’s been asked many times by our founder, Mac Van Wielingen, most notably in his 2017 speech at the Fraser Institute, where he proposes that long-term success depends on much more than just profit. “We are not maximizing one variable, we are combining, making choices, trading off and optimizing among four variables: profit, risk, time, and human experience.”

In a recent study by Deloitte, 40 percent of millennials “believe the goal of businesses should be to ‘improve society’.” As millennials will soon make up about 40 percent of all consumers, it is imperative that organizations examine how long-term sustainability, purpose-driven business decisions, and community investment fit into the bigger picture. Nothing states this louder than the fact that “64% of people globally expect CEOs to lead on social change rather than waiting for government intervention.”

Society needs corporate champions to lead the way down this untested, unfamiliar path. In his letter to CEOs, Larry Fink talks about the intimate relationship between purpose and profit in business. “Purpose is not the sole pursuit of profits but the animating force for achieving them. Profits are in no way inconsistent with purpose – in fact, profits and purpose are inextricably linked.”  He then encourages CEOs to lead the charge on making a positive impact on society. “One thing, however, is certain: the world needs your leadership. As divisions continue to deepen, companies must demonstrate their commitment to the countries, regions, and communities where they operate, particularly on issues central to the world’s future prosperity.” More and more leaders are realizing the interdependency of purpose and profit. If you need proof, read Baupost’s Davos letter orSeth Klarman’s interview regarding the leaders at Davos.

How can your organization prepare itself for a world that increasingly scrutinizes purpose? As Mac Van Wielingen proposes, corporate strategy is the key driver. At every turn in the strategy, ask if unnecessary short-term risk, social value, and environmental sustainability have been taken into account. By infusing the core of your organization with a culture of long-term thinking and social awareness, purpose-driven decisions will be made unconsciously, and social license will come naturally to your business.


Author

Viewpoint Research Team

Massive Retailers Are Failing, Could They Have Been Saved?

The sudden wave of retail bankruptcies this year have been startling for shoppers and analysts alike. Whether they’re electing to pursue online-only retail strategies or shutting up shop completely, the “retail apocalypse” may have finally descended upon us. With Sears announcing its Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure, President Trump has come out publicly claiming that Sears “has been dying for years” due to mismanagement (which is ironic, as the US Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, was also on Sears’ board of directors).

Sears was once the USA’s largest employer – the Walmart or Amazon of yesteryear. Toys R’ Us was once the Mecca for children’s toys. How are such high-profile retail outlets succumbing at such an alarming rate? Are shoppers simply moving online? Although ecommerce is an easy scapegoat for many retailers, it is likely not the main culprit. The evidence points to something deeper – systemic flaws within the culture of these retail monoliths that leave them no ability to adapt or re-invent their businesses, short-sighted management with little strategic planning, and huge debt levels from unmotivated private equity owners. “If you are going to run your business like most businesses, it is only reasonable to expect that you will end up like most businesses” – most likely out of business within five years.

This leaves us one question: where does the responsibly lie? Could the boards of these organizations have ultimately prevented these performance failures?

As we’ve seen, in their current state, it is too easy for boards of directors to overlook deep-rooted performance issues. This point is something Mac Van Wielingen has drawn on multiple times in his work – that the board needs to take a more active, vigilant approach to guiding the performance of their companies, escaping the gravitational pull that leads to“most directors [playing] a role akin to spectators…versus real players in the game, sharing in the responsibilities for outcomes.”


Author

Viewpoint Research Team

Are We Heading Towards Another Financial Crisis?

Our founder, Mac Van Wielingen, often refers to the 2008 financial crisis as a critical point, as it “exposed significant corporate governance failings and led many to question the role of business in society.” There was a failure in strategic risk management and oversight due to a loss of focus on client interests, obsessive short-termism, and excessive financial leverage. In 2010, Viewpoint Research Partners was founded to explore the challenges through conducting and curating research. A decade has passed since Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, launching the world into a global financial meltdown. In a single day, more than $600 billion USD in assets were wiped out, and 25,000 employees lost their jobs.

So what has changed since then?

The road to recovery has been a tough one. It has taken years for unemployment to return to pre-recession numbers, which has increased disparity in wealth. Middle-class income in the U.S. has only recently reached $61,000 USD, the level before the recession. Policy changes and new regulations have been implemented in response to the instability and the abundance of financial fraud that occurred, resulting in more global bank stability.

Are we at risk of stepping down the same path again?

It seems that there are similar conditions brewing, with increasing public polarization, and the increasing trade tensions and corporate debt. “Ten years on from the 2008 meltdown, the global banking systems seems more resilient to shocks, corporate profits are generally strong, and the bull market trudges along. But that in itself is a dangerous situation.” While there is no punchy one-line answer, organizations can protect themselves from repeating history by focusing on long-term performance and sustainability, and being open to new ways of governing business.


Author

Viewpoint Research Team

Success: Ethical Failure in Leadership

The topic of success’s dark-side was recently brought up, and the more that it was explored, the more facets it seemed to have. Facets such as, in-fighting among top executives or family members in successful companies, the never ending battle to find the next big talent, and the loss of ethics that lead to scandal, all of which deserve to be explored fully in their own posts.

The recent scandals that have been dominating news feeds this past year, along with the questions of how and why leaders with well-established integrity and leadership track records come to engage in unethical practices.

ETHICS (OR LACK THEREOF) AND LEADERSHIP ACROSS SECTORS

Reports that detail ethical violations by managers and executives continue to occur despite ethics being considered pivotal to organizational success, and receiving increased attention by firms and business schools. Trust in corporations and how they are run has never before been subjected to the level of public scrutiny that it is now. Advances in technology, the internet, and social media make it increasingly easy to check up on businesses and their practices.

Leaders at all levels can talk the talk of ethics all they want, but unless they are also walking that ethics walk it becomes meaningless.

This is not only seen in business, but in other arenas where ethics and honour are held in high esteem such as sports. The scandals surrounding FIFA, the Olympics, and other elite athletic competitions such as the Tour De France, are but a few examples of where the ethics talk certainly does not match up with the walk.

Spectators and athletes who compete fairly are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the competitive culture of sports and how it is getting out of hand. It is more and more common for those who win at any cost through corruption, and monetary advantages to be met with public derision and harsh penalties.

Politics is another area where ethics is ideally a key piece of the foundation on which individual politicians and their platforms run. However as the news so continuously, and delightedly informs us, this is often not the case. This seemingly endless American federal election has provided countless examples of this.

And while America’s larger-than-life presence often dominates, this is a world-wide phenomenon and Canada has had its fair share of ethical failures.

HOW SUCCESS AND ETHICAL FAILURE ARE CONNECTED

Ludwig and Longenecker suggest that competitive pressure can certainly be a factor behind why some leaders abandon their principles and commit ethical violations. This notion that the ethical failure of leaders – in all sectors – is largely due to lack of personal principles, or the state of the climate of the market, is argued to be only half of the story.

“The media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.”— George, 2011

Success and lack of preparedness in dealing with personal and organizational success is actually the issue. Our society places a high priority on being successful, yet there is little attention placed on preparing people to deal with the aftermath of success once it is achieved.

There were a number of reasons discussed in the literature that outline why success can lead to ethical failure:

  • Success can lead to complacency and loss of focus

    • Attention is diverted away from the management of their business, and teams are left unchecked

  • Personal and organizational success can lead to privileged access to information, people, or objects

    • Information can be used to the leaders advantage (i.e. insider trading)

  • Success often includes increasing control over organizational resources

    • Resources can be diverted to areas more focused on personal interests rather than to what is best for the organization

  • Success can lead to an inflation of a manager’s belief in their personal ability to manipulate outcomes

    • External factors that may also be influencing the organization’s performance are discounted (See previous post on bias)

  • Leaders who are successful can lose their ability to gain satisfaction from what they have already achieved, and what they have becomes not enough

    • This can translate into greed which can lead to a loss in perspective and unethical behaviours being rationalized

    • Not initially getting caught in this cycle can increase the feeling of invincibility and the likelihood of additional unethical choices being made in the future

  • Personal isolation and a lack of intimacy with family, friends, and colleagues can become an issue

    • Not being able to discuss problems, and long hours spent away from home can cause a loss in a valuable source of personal balance

While none of these reasons should be looked at as excuses for those who experience ethical failure, the issue is not as simple as labelling someone good or bad. Anyone can fall into the trap of success if they are not properly prepared for all of the stresses that are associated with said success.

MITIGATING THIS RISK

There are a number of ways in which you can prepare yourself, your leadership team, and your organization for success.

The first and most obvious should be that ethics must be an ingrained characteristic in those that you hire. Building a team who is ethical helps to inspire those around them to lead by example.

Your company’s board should also be actively aware of your management team’s personal and psychological balance. Before anyone is appointed to a leadership role they need to understand and express why it is that they want to lead, as well as what the purpose of their leadership is, and what it will achieve for the company, and for themselves personally. If the answers to these questions honestly revolve around concepts such as money, power, and prestige, then these candidates run the risk of primarily considering external gratification as their measure of fulfillment, and are most at risk of ethical failure.

While there is nothing wrong with placing value on these visible external symbols of success, they must be “combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself” (George, 2011) in order to maintain a firm grip on the high standard of ethics that most leaders start out with.

Regularly scheduled audits of critical organizational decisions, processes and resources, clearly established ethical codes of conduct, and a strictly enforced policy that protects employees who report unethical behaviour heighten both awareness and compliance.

In both the VW and Wells Fargo examples that were linked to at the beginning of this post, there was evidence that employees who tried to go against the grain of established unethical practice were fired for either not meeting the excessively unrealistic criteria, or, for bringing unsavoury information to light – to either leaders, or the public.

If we are able to reframe our perception of leaders from hero to servant of the people they lead, the psychological challenges listed above may be easier to mitigate due to fact that these expectations that people often have of what they deserve once success is achieved will not be as prevalent. 

No matter what sector you are looking at – sports, politics, or business – an organization whose leadership team is entirely composed of members who are the physical embodiment of ethics and fully capable of wise decision-making, can still become a victim of the temptations that are offered to – or seen to be deserved by – the powerful and successful.

The dichotomy of good versus bad in our current portrayal of scandals in the media is not representative of the underlying issues. If this continues, and the root of the problem is not addressed, then no matter how much effort, time, and money, business schools and firms put towards ethics education, scandals will continue to happen.

The negative aspects of success are not always obvious, but they are nevertheless present. It is how well we understand ourselves, and are able to see these dangers to effectively diminish them that count.


Author

Viewpoint Research Team


Sources used for this post:

Brimmer, S. (2007). The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations - Leadership Advance Online, School of Business & Leadership, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VirginiaRegent.edu. Retrieved 21 November 2016, fromhttp://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/lao/issue_11/brimmer.htm

de Botton, A. (2013). Business and PhilosophyThe Huffington Post. Retrieved 28 October 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alain-de-botton/business-and-philosophy_b_4170623.html

George, B. (2011). Why Leaders Lose Their WayHBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved 17 October 2016, from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/why-leaders-lose-their-way

Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics12(4), 265-273.

Mellahi, K., Jackson, P., & Sparks, L. (2002). An exploratory study into failure in successful organizations: The case of Marks & Spencer. British Journal of Management13(1), 15-29.

Poulsen, A. (2015). Why Future Business Leaders Need PhilosophyBig Think. Retrieved 26 October 2016, from http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy