Tire Corporate Structure

Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited (CTC) is primarily a canadian retailer, focusing on automotive and general merchandise. Founded in 1922, the company has been around for almost a century, building strong brand recognition in Canada. Initially starting as a car parts retailer they have expanded rapidly into other areas, mainly general merchandise retail. They have other secondary divisions being; Partsource Automotive stores (strictly automotive parts), Financial Services, Mark’s Work Wearhouse (clothing retailer), FGL Sports Ltd. (various sporting good retail chains), and Canadian Tire Petroleum (gas stations and car washing). The main users of CTC’s financial statements have been identified as the debt

Many firms are learning that being environmentally friendly and sustainable has numerous benefits. (O.C Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). This could enable them to increase goodwill from various stakeholders and also save money in the long term. This will mean that they are being more efficient and less wasteful of resources, which will enable them to be more competitive by satisfying stakeholders. The CEO of

Canadian Tire was first started in 1922, my brothers AJ and JW Billes in a Toronto garage bought for $1800. A brief example of the chains endurance through time, is when they had tried to open their own chain of gas stations in Canada back in the 1950’s. When oil companies had cut off their supply, Canadian Tire bought sixty million gallons of gas from the USSR during the peak of the Cold War. Another issue was during the 90’s when internal affairs between head office and dealers, lead to product shortages and the nickname “Crappy Tire” (Holloway). Today, Canadian Tire has grown into one of Canada’s largest retail chains and is a “scrappy symbol of Canadian

Canadian Tire has employed a silo organization structure, each department concentrate on its own silo rather than integrate data. The silo syndrome restricts the effectiveness on maximizing the competencies and resource of each department.

The Canadian aerospace industry faces formidable and ferocious competitive forces worldwide. Teller said “Canada is one of the most trade-oriented economies in the world.” More than 40 percent of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product is trade-generated. One in three jobs in Canada is directly dependent on the ability to sell products elsewhere. Canadian companies have made significant investments to develop high technology products such as Bombardier’s family of regional jets.

Sustainability is a growing concern for many individuals and companies as resources are becoming increasingly limited, hazardous, and expensive. Over the last few years, more people have been informed about sustainable options, which have been easier to obtain and contribute to, as well as wanting to purchase more sustainable options from companies. Since the idea of sustainability is so broad, everyone can contribute in a way they feel is most beneficial. Whether individuals and companies are giving back for personal or self-regarding reasons, it is still helping give back to the environment and provide a more sustainable future.

As a business, Canadian Tire is one of the most powerful public companies;

The largest contributor to Canada’s Gross Domestic Product is Canada’s largest manufacturing employer (Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 2011), but how has this sector surpassed all other industries? and how has this sector survived all the economic destructions riddled throughout Canada’s history? This is the Canadian automotive industry and it is enormous and powerful yet so threatened by politics. Two of the largest players in the automotive industry are the Ford Motor Company and General Motors. By comparing the two paths both parallel companies have taken throughout over one hundred years of operations (Dykes, 2015), we can expose proper and improper business strategies within Canada. We can adventure through the strengths built up by management, the weaknesses that have attacked through the inside, the potential opportunities forecasted to arise, and the threats that may enforce themselves towards these industrial giants. From this we may be able to gather just what it takes to survive the Canadian market.

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

Companies with different sizes and structures understand that having sustainable operations is extremely important and they do so by balancing the 3 dimensions of the TBL concept. Environmental sustainability is related to the reduction of the footprint left by the company on the environment. Social sustainability shifts the focus to both internal communities (i.e., employees) and external ones (Pullman et al., 2009). In order to enhance their social reputation companies engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Fombrun, 2005). Corporate Social Responsibility requires companies to acknowledge that they should be publicly accountable not only for their financial performance but also for their social and environmental record (CBI, 2001) and, by relating the TBL concept to CSR, it can be suggested that companies not only need to engage in socially and environmentally responsible behaviour, but, also, that positive financial gains can be made in the process (Gimenez et al, 2012).

This work will be based on a theoretical framework of sustainability and specifically that of corporate social responsibility (CSR).The work of Porter and Kramer (2003) indicated that businesses can indeed benefit immensely by engaging in CSR activities. These must be done while at the same time ensuring that the business remains profitable. As Carroll (1983, p. 608), CSR involves the conduct and behavior of a given business in a manner that is law abiding, economically viable, ethical and yet socially supportive. Eco-efficiency should therefore be one of the ways in which businesses can offer goods and services in a way that can improve the quality of life so as to make the clients satisfied (Elkington,1997,p.,78). I will therefore be engaging this topic from the point of view of environmental awareness, eco-efficiency and environmental corporate social responsibility and their impact on the image and profitability of companies.

They created a board team responsible exclusive for CSR and made several actions in order to transmit the corporate sustainability responsibility to all levels at the company and stakeholders, (suppliers, clients, partners, etc..)

Today, companies are well aware of the expectations put to them by stakeholders, investors and consumer demand, as well as governmental policies, to become more corporate socially responsible (CSR) by implementing sustainable practices and strategies. As earth’s resources are slowly being depleted, corporations are expected to be more socially and environmentally responsible. Countless corporations understand the need for CSR and claim to have sustainable strategies in place, but are the strategies real or is it a facade? What are the real intentions behind companies turning to sustainability? Is there a hidden agenda or do they have a genuine concern with the sustainability issues, stakeholder and consumer demands or are they seeking a

It not only requires investments in green product and manufacturing technologies, employee skills, organizational competencies, formal management systems and procedures, but also in the reconfiguration of the strategic planning process. To date, existing approaches are still so fragmented and disconnected from business strategy in such a way as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society via such an approach (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Yet, it has been suggested that if corporations would analyze their prospects for environmental responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that environmental management can be much more than a cost or a constraint; it could, in essence, be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2006).

Founder Anderson was the driving force behind this radical “mid-course correction”, to use the name of his book. In the 1990’s, Anderson recognized “that the Earth is damaged and hurting – badly” (Anderson, 1998) and changed the direction of the company significantly. This sustainable mindset touches every aspect of the company’s operations from its supply chain to its production line and even after the customer has purchased and installed it. It’s an inspiring story and it shows that working towards a sustainable operation is possible and can be profitable.