Compiled Comments

1. 
For Rens van de Peppel

Dutch people in my opinion has pretty good environmental awareness comparing to people in other countries. Not perfect, of course. And it is truly a puzzle that people living in a modern society with such amazing access to information are still so poorly informed about our environmental crises. I see that you combined the two topics of first week and I think you can make it a bit more structured so the readers can see clearly which topic you are addressing. Also, for the business is only for profit part, i like you argument but i am not so clear in terms of what your position is. You seems to agree with Friedman but at same time hoping that it is not true?

For Jorinde Vernooij 

I like that you added Simon’s rationality theories in your blog about business. It adds a very interesting perspective. 

As a supporter of Friedman, I have to defend him. I think you might have taken his position a bit further than he intended. For example, i did see him making the point that “companies engaging in socials activities are in opposition to the democracy”. I interpreted him as that business executives are responsible for the company and employees and should not bother with “social good” if it hurts their profit. Social good is responsibility assigned to the state. 

Also i would argue for Friedman that the big companies spending a fraction of their profit on social projects might be doing it to improve the corporation’s image in order to make their product more appealing to the public, which in the end is still for its own profit even though it does good along the way. 

2.

For Franco

I have to admit that I had to look up some of the terms you used ;)

Just one confusion: “utilizing over and over the same company’s systems and habits to achieve this maximum profit”--sorry i didn’t really get what this part means. What system and habit can bring maximum profit?

I think there could be more content on the analysis part. Maybe you can move the relevant facts from the introduction part to the decision making model analysis part to make your point stronger?

3.
For Paulina Gual
Hi, I liked that you used specific examples of your home country water supply companies to explain your point but I would also be very interested to know more details about the operations and how exactly does   “improve wastewater treatment technology and processing”  benefit them.
And on the similar note, I think it would also be helpful to the readers if you can explain a bit more about Ostrom's 10 subsystem variables, assuming your readership is the general public. 
Hope it makes sense. 

4.
For Wybren
I agree with your points that Nokia’s effort of auditing the supplier on site was notable, local circumstances needed to be taken into account when trying to legitimize and that a lot is still needed to be done. 
I think it might be helpful for the readers if you can specify here: “They do this by requesting the supplier to improve on certain points”. Maybe you could give a brief review of these points?
Also, I didn’t really understand what you were trying to say here:  “Furthermore they also try to legitimize the working conditions by saying it is only a temporary job for workers in which they try to save up some money for study.” It will be great if you can provide a bit explanation. 
Hope it makes sense. 


For Alice 
I agree with you that “strive” might be a bit of an overstatement for the companies’ effort for  legitimacy, based on what we saw in the documentary. But I do wonder if you think Nokia is successful in diffusing the sustainable criteria on the “people” aspect, in other words, do you think they have successfully pressured their supplier to treat their employees better? You said they did ok, for a start, but were they effective on that point?

I do like your suggestion in the end of using media to exert pressure on relevant parties. And your blog overall is very clearly organized and easy to comprehend. I should try to do the same with mine. 

5.

For Jochem

I liked your rather straightforward analysis of this classic case as you mentioned the roles of the individual companies and government and concluded with the three regional networks in the end. If I have to propose improvements, I would say to find an academic journal about this industrial complex and dig deeper into the collaboration between the companies and the imperfection and challenges of the complex. 

And a few small things:

First paragraph: “...needed water for their their refinery...” just a typo.

Either make the illustration bigger or describe it in more details would be easier for the readers.

A word to explain the difference between greenfield/brownfield industrial complex would be helpful since your readers might not be clear about it.

“catalyst” might be a better word instead of “catalyser”. 


For Florentine
Obviously your essay is very clear and well-structured. I was very impressed at your thoroughness and attention to details. Clearly you have done a lot of background research and analysis to write such an article. I also really like that you bolded key concepts, make it easy for me to refer back to the lectures. 
One point I find contrary to what I thought is when you discussed the “asymmetric dependency” between companies and the government. Previously I thought “dependency” is a term mainly used to explore the relationship between the companies. I agreed with the point you made there that the companies largely depend on the funding from the government, just not sure if “dependency” is a suitable concept to be used here. Of course I could just be narrow minded. 

Some minor issues with spacing and formatting of the paragraphs. I remember it is a rule that a single sentence cannot be a paragraph. But overall it’s really great work!

6.
For Spyros

I agree with your analysis on the conflict of goals of the game. You also suggested to redefine the game, which is cool, but I didn’t find where your redefinition is. Maybe I just missed it but it might be good if you can state it somewhere clearly? 

I liked that you suggested pantomime and a gambling stage for the gaming side of the game. That sounds fun and exciting, while transforming the competition from scheming to get more fish to have a more fun and open competition. Only possible problem I can imagine is that the “mime committee” have the possibility to cheat since the members in each group can discuss the concepts they will try to persuade the mime committee to do. If all members do that, it might be hard for the committee to decide on one concept to mime. An outsider moderator might be needed for this. Hope that makes sense. 

For William

I like your thoughts on term “profit”, that it is the goal of the game but can be pursued differently, which causes problem to sustain the game. Also relating the game to reality, explaining why setting up a committee can be difficult. 

I see that your approach is to focus on “transparency” but also leaves space for the “game” factor which is interesting. As you discussed, ‘guilt’ is probably not enough all by itself to make the game sustainable. When it goes in conflict with the competition between the teams, I think the will to win will overtake. Possible scenario is that many teams go for the maximum and once the other teams get feedback, they may do the same thing to catch up, and the teams that first went for the maximum may just keep doing the same thing to be in the lead. The system may collapse very fast. Perhaps I am just pessimistic but I do think the conflict between competition and sustainability should be addressed. I did enjoy your argument very much, it is very clear and from quite a different perspective from mine. And I am actually curious to see what will actually happen if we play the game with your rule.