Company Q’s Current Attitude to Social Responsibility

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Evaluation of the company’s current attitudes towards social responsibility
Conclusion and Recommendations
References

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be described as a practice whereby business entities regulate themselves by ensuring that they adhere to the established laws, ethical standards and international norms (Feltus, Petit, & Dubois, 2009).

There have been rising concerns over the ethical and social responsibilities of contemporary firms. CSR is aimed at encouraging firms to take responsibility for their actions and promote positive impacts through various activities aimed towards the consumers, environment, employees, stakeholders and the community t large (Sun, 2011).

A case provided states that Company Q is a small local grocery store chain located in a major metropolitan area. They have recently closed a couple of stores in higher-crime-rate areas of the city, reportedly because these two stores were consistently losing money. After years of requests from customers, all of their stores have started offering a very limited amount of health-conscience and organic products—all of which were high margin items.

When asked by the area’s food bank for donation of day-old products, management declined deciding instead to throw the food away, citing worries over lost revenues due to possible fraud and stealing by employees who might say they are donating the food. This paper seeks to evaluate Company Q’s current attitude towards social responsibility and recommend three areas that could be improved regarding the company’s attitude towards social responsibility.

In the above case, the firm has experienced some negative impacts as a result of high prevalence of robbery incidents in the area. This has resulted in the closure of two of its stores which were however reopened after pressure from the customers. The company has begun to offer limited amount of health-conscience and organic products—all of which were previously high margin items. The firm seems to feel harassed by the hostile business environment which has exposed them to robberies in the past.

By providing limited amount of products that were initially of high margin it implies that the firm has abandoned the responsibility to its customers. In consistence with the broader socioeconomic model of social responsibility, the firm should have a responsibility to stakeholders, suppliers, customers, employees and the society (Sun, 2011).

The refusal to provide adequate amounts of health-conscience and organic products indicates that the firm is less concerned about health promotion in the community it serves and therefore has a poor attitude towards social responsibility in that aspect.

Firm Q also refuses to donate day-old products to the local food bank and instead prefers to throw them away citing lost revenues due to possible fraud and stealing by employees who might say they are donating food. It looks like the firm is more concerned about its profits and therefore uses the traditional model of business which stipulates that a firm exists to provide goods and services and in return make profits and offer employment (Sun, 2011).

Thus the firm refuses to donate food and instead opts to throw it away in an effort to monitor the transparency of its employees. This raises fundamental questions as to whether the firm is really concerned about the overall wellness of the community it serves. The firm doesn’t want to go an extra mile in formulating mechanisms to ensure that food is donated without compromising transparency in its stores.

This analysis indicates that firm Q is not fully committed to the values of corporate social responsibility. It also shows that the stakeholders and managers do not have the complete will to play a positive role in the community where they do business.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper sought to evaluate Company Q’s current attitude towards social responsibility and recommend three areas that could be improved regarding the company’s attitude towards social responsibility. The paper has established that the company lacks the total commitment to implement CSR functions (Feltus, Petit, & Dubois, 2009).

There is need for stakeholders and managers of company Q to understand that they have a responsibility not only to themselves, employees, and supplies but also to the customers and the society at large (Sun, 2011). They should realize that it’s in their best interest to play a role in activities that benefit the society. The company should implement the following suggestions to develop a positive attitude towards social responsibility.

First, firm Q should develop a CSR strategy by identifying other players in the society such as civil society organizations and discussing with them on social responsibility activities (Feltus, Petit, & Dubois, 2009). Secondly, the company should seek ways to develop a culture of “doing the right thing” in its employees (Sun, 2011, P. 34). This may include engaging in constant dialogue with its employees to increase the levels of trust and accountability.

Thirdly, better ways of providing better communication channels on the different activities undertaken by the employees should also be established. Such measures will enable the firm to carry out its social responsibility duties freely without worrying about the possibility of fraud by its employees. By assisting in the resolution of social issues, the company will effectively develop a stable environment for long-term profitability (Sun, 2011).

References

Feltus, C., Petit, M., & Dubois, E. (2009). Strengthening employee’s responsibility to enhance governance. Chicago: COBIT RACI.

Sun, W. (2011). How to Govern Corporations So They Serve the Public Good: A Theory of Corporate Governance Emergence. New York: Edwin Mellen.

Click Here To Order Now!

Introduction

Evaluation of the company’s current attitudes towards social responsibility

Conclusion and Recommendations

References

Related