Day 2: Sustainability in Vietnam + Park Hyatt Saigon
During the guest lecture at UEF, the professor showed this graphic about organizational change:
The graphic resonated heavily with my own observations of my generation, so I looked it up to include in my blog post. What I found out was that the original graphic was actually missing a third and arguably most important category:
That missing piece says a lot about what students at both UEF and Pitt need to learn as the next generation entering business and leadership roles. It is not enough to simply understand problems or talk about innovation theoretically. Real progress requires people who actively want to take responsibility and lead improvements themselves.
The graphic reminded me of a philosophy paper I read last semester by Elizabeth Anderson, who argued that future elite leaders need four criteria in order to successfully serve the people beneath them: 1) knowledge of the problems, 2) desire to serve others, 3) knowledge of how to solve the problems, and 4) effective communication. Out of those four, only the third can truly be taught through academic instruction alone. The first and fourth require real world experiences and interaction with people, which is exactly what this trip is giving us. The second point, the genuine desire to help others, connected directly to the class discussion about change. Schools can produce knowledgeable graduates, but producing leaders who actually care enough to improve society is much more difficult.
This same theme of genuine care appeared in our discussion of sustainability in business. The professor brought to light a point of view on sustainability that I had never considered: sustainability is a profit strategy, not a purely moral responsibility. Companies pursue “green” initiatives because they reduce costs or increase profit margins, not necessarily because they genuinely care about the environment. In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of that perspective because it felt more realistic than how sustainability is often presented in the United States.
However, I also started noticing what felt like hypocrisy within corporate sustainability messaging. Companies often market themselves as environmentally conscious when going green saves them money. But when environmentally friendly initiatives become too expensive, they suddenly shift the conversation and explain to consumers that prices would need to rise. It almost feels manipulative. If sustainability benefits the company financially, they present it as evidence that they deeply care about the environment. If sustainability becomes costly, they frame avoiding it as being “for the customer’s benefit” so prices stay low. The messaging changes depending on what is convenient for the business.
Sustainability conversations often center around the environment, but there are two other often overlooked aspects of business sustainability: economics and consumer happiness. Businesses must remain financially stable and actually satisfy customers in order to survive long term. A company cannot realistically maintain environmentally friendly practices if consumers are unwilling to support them financially.
This idea stayed in my mind later during our site visit to the Park Hyatt Saigon. While many students asked questions about environmental initiatives, I found myself thinking more about return on investment and luxury consumer behavior. The hotel was incredibly extravagant. One thing that stood out to me was the pastry kitchen’s dedicated chocolate lab. It was beautiful and impressive, but I kept wondering how investments like that are financially justified. Does every luxury amenity need to be heavily demanded in order to be profitable, or is the benefit of simply having those features, whether utilized or not, enough to attract wealthy guests and maintain the hotel’s image?
It also made me think differently about luxury business models. At first glance, it seems like luxury hotels would have higher profits because they charge guests such high rates. However, because their operating costs and investments are so high, I wonder if the costs offset the profit. Do luxury brands actually make a larger profit margin because of their high prices, or do the costs and revenue cancel one another out, resulting in margins that are relatively equivalent to that of standard, everyday brands?
I noticed subtle cultural differences in treatment during the Park Hyatt visit. The atmosphere sometimes felt somewhat cold or rushed. It may have been because the employees were busy, but it also connected to my conversation with a UEF student, Sammy, about social hierarchy and cultural treatment across Asia. In some places there is a prioritization of Westerners, while in Vietnam there can be more prioritization toward Asians outside heavily tourist centered environments.
At the Park Hyatt specifically, the employees are used to catering to extremely wealthy guests, so a large group of students probably did not fit the typical image of their clientele. Perceptions of class and status influence service interactions in every country, not just Vietnam. Is the friendliness we have experienced elsewhere solely meant for exchange of social mobility, and if there is no benefit to be received, does that welcome disappear?
Maybe some of the group photos that have been taken since our arrival are not as simple as a memorabilia, but rather serve a deeper purpose for future marketing which will in turn bring more profit and attention to the brands. Once the mindset of taking advantage of social exchange becomes prevalent, it becomes more pressing that every interaction is a trade of good for benefit.
Some other interesting experiences today included using Kahoot in class at UEF just like we do in the United States, being the first Jew that a UEF student has ever met, and learning about the Vietnamese version of scratch off lottery tickets.
I found out during our language class that the phrase “hôn môi” which I was taught the day prior as their version of saying “bless you,” actually meant “kiss on the lips.” No wonder I got so many odd stares when I told the Victory Hotel receptionist “hôn môi” after he sneezed. I now know the correct phrase is “cơm muối,” and hopefully I do not have to update the blog again tomorrow that this is also incorrect. Also, Vietnamese texting slang shortens words similarly to English texting slang. For example, “không” meaning “no” can become “kh,” “ko,” or “ong,” similar to how Americans shorten words like “okay” into “ok,” “kk,” or “k.”
I was taught that similarly to the U.S. with merit aid for students with high SAT/ACT scores, Vietnamese university students can receive less expensive tuition if they score higher on the IL English proficiency exam, ranging between an A1-C2 level of fluency.
Later in the evening, a group of us were brought to a local food market by some of the UEF students. It was definitely unlike any experience I have ever seen before, with countless food vendors and flower shops. Crossing the street with the local students was very frightening because they just walk into oncoming traffic and raise their hand in the air with the expectation that the 30 motorbikes traveling at a minimum speed of 50 mph will stop in time. But, I am happy to report that I live to see another day without being run over.
While I can’t say I tried any food at the market, I did step out of my comfort zone with many new foods today. I had an array of desserts while at UEF, including multiple flavors of pork skin and tamarind, honeycomb cakes dipped in a coconut sweet sauce. I had a regional flavor of Lays called Prawn and Cheese. The mango salad at lunch was new and delicious. And my favorite part of the day was trying the Vietnamese regional items at McDonalds: spicy fried chicken with a green lime sauce, spaghetti with marinara and sweet sausage, a “McRoyalty” burger, and Matcha Oreo McFlurry.