Executive Summary

Your company has decided to turn down suppliers who are not fishing in a sustainable manner. This approach to sustainability is superficial. The rejected seafood by your company, not in-line with their sustainability standards, can be readily sold elsewhere. Your company is not providing incentives for the suppliers to reach sustainability goals together. This report provides a recommendation and an implementation plan for your company to achieve their goals while demonstrating true sustainability. With regards to the triple bottom line, your company is focusing their attention on Place (nature) while neglecting the People (suppliers) affected in the change. They intend to increase their profits by differentiating themselves through sustainability but as a fisherman pointed out in the article, it resembles a marketing ploy. Knowing some suppliers would be negatively impacted by the change; Your company did little to ease the transition. In fact, your company made the transition more difficult by moving up the deadline for adopting sustainable practices. The lack of interaction and cooperation between your company and the suppliers makes its sustainability initiative seem questionable.

Your company’s competitive strategy is focused differentiation and any organizational actions and stance taken should be derived from its unique proposition. Current state between your company and the suppliers is being managed using a power strategy, leading to an unsustainable relationship. The fishing ban is a change in domain and some favorable linkages can be established to address this resource dependency. A stakeholder approach can be taken and the positions of various stakeholders of your company should be considered. The customers are satisfied with the organic and environmentally friendly products you provide. However this