SITE paper development workshops. 'Business Model Canvass 2.0' by Greg Molekce and 'Human Rights Mobilization against Gold Mining in Chile' by David Monciardini
SITE (Science, Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship)
|Speaker:||Dr Greg Molecke and Dr David Monciardini, Internal|
|Date:||Thursday 21 May 2020|
Business Model Canvass 2.0' by Greg Molecke
Business Model Canvasses have become a central tool for entrepreneurs to think through the interrelated parts a business. A Business Model Canvas is a one page framework with nine boxes that describes four “frontstage” aspects of a business’s customers: customer segments, customer relationships, (delivery) channels, and revenue streams, and four “backstage” aspects the business operations: resources, activities, partnerships, and costs. The ninth and most important box – value proposition – sits in the center of the framework, connecting everything together. Business model canvasses have become omnipresent in university entrepreneurship programs, have become essential exercises for entrepreneurs developing business ideas, and are widely seen as the first step in developing business pitches and plans. However, despite their ubiquity and usefulness, the Business Model Canvas (BMC henceforth) run into three problems. First, they have blindspots such as missing modern considerations of context, stakeholders and triple-bottom-line priorities of modern businesses. Second, the framework is often misunderstood and misused by students and entrepreneurs. And finally, BMCs do not guide new entrepreneurs to develop appropriate approaches for doing entrepreneurship – e.g. effectuation, lean and design thinking, effective risk-taking and failure. This is crucial as modern entrepreneurship research has found that the processes and practices of entrepreneur-ing are essential to entrepreneurial success. As a tool billed as a starting point into entrepreneurship, these three problems must be addressed for the BMC to reach its full potential. Therefore, this article maps the current issues with the BMC and proposes an updated version, a BMC 2.0, to address them.
'Torn between Legal Claiming and Privatized Remedy:Rights Mobilization against Gold Mining in Chile' by David Monciardini
I will talk about the finding of a longitudinal study that lasted over three years and was conducted together with Prof Steffen Böhm (University of Exeter) and Dr Rajiv Maher (Trinity College Dublin). The main output of the study is a paper soon to be published by Business Ethics Quarterly. Many academic authors, policymakers, NGOs and corporations have focused on top-down human rights global norm-making, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). What is often missing are contextual and substantive analyses that interrogate human rights mobilization and linkages between voluntary transnational rules and domestic governance. Deploying a socio-legal approach and using a combination of longitudinal field and archival data, this article investigates how a local, indigenous community in Northern Chile mobilized their rights over a period of almost two decades. We found that rights mobilization was largely shaped by tensions between the different logics of legality and the business organization. In our case, the UNGP implementation process has been ineffective in giving rightsholders access to genuine remedy. On the contrary, it has led to weakened rights mobilization, dividing the local community. We conclude that greater attention to rights mobilization and domestic governance dynamics should be given in the Business and Human Rights debate.