A dimension of CSR that I wish to further analyze is the avid use of social responsibility by US multi-billion dollar industries. Often, because of their growing and almost parasitic presence in nearly every major city, these multi-billion dollar companies have been viewed as a nuisance that mutilate the business hopes of mom and pop counterparts.
Yesterday, while performing my morning ritual of adding milk and sugar to my coffee at one of 10 local Starbucks, I noticed a collection of pamphlets behind the sugar. One of them very clearly read "Social Responsibility: How is my Starbucks doing its part?" Inside the pamphlet, the reader is warmly greeted with; "Dear valued customers and neighbors,"it then states, "We are often asked how Starbucks went from a single coffee shop in 1971 to one of the most recognizable and respected global brands today. Delivering great coffee, exceptional service, and an uplifting customer experience have all contributed to Starbuck's success. Equally important has been our commitment to conducting business in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, a commitment that stems from Starbucks Mission statement and guiding principles."
Starbucks operates over 8,000 shops in 34 countries, each week serving 28 million customers.
Three new Starbucks branches open every day - its target is 30,000 stores, with sights set firmly on growth markets such as China. Not coincidentally, a survey carried out last month by Global Marketing Incite found that even Starbucks customers perceive the company as 'arrogant, intrusive and self-centred'. It is then, no surprise then that Starbucks has invested significantly in CSR activity.
Starbucks is very concerned with conducting business responsibly and makes this notion clear to all of its consumers and stakeholders. In fact, one can find a great dea; of information about the good that Starbucks does in articles, databases, websites, journals, and reference texts. Simply searching for "Starbucks csr" on the Internet, I was barraged by information about what Starbucks is doing here and abroad to make a difference in our world. Also noticeably available is the Starbucks annual fiscal Corporate Responsibility Report which is clearly presented on their website for consumers and stakeholders to view at any time. When reading this, I learned that Starbucks engages in free trade practices, paying fair prices to "coffee communities" (small countries like El Salvador and Guatemala). In 2006 they also invested 36.1 dollars to local communities, committed 5 million dollars to disaster relief in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina; Starbucks employees have volunteered over 383,000 hours in local community efforts; recycle and use cups with 10% post consumer fiber, etc.
Bottom line, despite their eventual arrival to every block, Starbucks is good at what they do. From delicious Caramel Macchiatos to conducting business responsibly- Starbucks gets it right.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Discussion Questions
1) What is the common denominator that coheres, defines, and sets the parameters of the emerging Global Community?
A "shared stake or responsibility in the condition of the earth and society. "
2) What is the fundamental attribute that stakeholders and shareholders of a given company have in common?
Stakeholders and shareholders are both invested (literally!) in the financial growth and well being of a corporation.
3) In what ways was the Montgomery Bus Boycott of the civil rights era a precursor to the “ethical consumption” discussed in the Dawkins/Lewis article?
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a prominent precursor to “ethical consumption” because it was an exemplified shareholders (purchacers of bus tickets) holding a corporation (the bus company) accountable for not being socially responsible (racism).
4) In reference to the Felton Earls article, what “self interested” responsibility might Corporations have to deal with the issue of Urban Poverty?
Through investing in a neighborhood or providing jobs for residents stricken by poverty , companies could help to make a region more habitable while gaining support from those they have aided. Through these positive business practices, cities are bolstered lives are bettered.
5) What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (SCSR chapter 7) Do you agree with it? Why or why not? To what extent might it be “self-interested” for a company to go above and beyond its prescriptions?
The Community Reinvestment Act“is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate”. This act mandates that banks invest in their local communities.
In total, the CRA has initiated $1.5 trillion in community investment projects!
Although I think that CSR should be voluntary, this act has proven (by its impact) that laws that encourage CSR should represent the wave of the future of improving our communities.
6) In reference to Goodpastor and Matthew’s “Hand of Management” archetype, is it possible for a business to have thoughts? How? Similarly, is a business a “machine”, an “institution”, an “organism”, or some combination of the three?
The “Hand of Management” projects the idea that a business can be morally conscious. A business is made up of people and their thoughts and ideas can be seen in every aspect of business. Also, a business must survive and sustain itself. A business can seem to have thoughts when the ideas of its workers to change current practices and impact the community are used.
I think that business is akin to an organism. It is a working body of many parts and each part has a function. Like a business each part of the organism works together to replenish itself and grow. The well being of the whole organism relies on the health of each parts and its environment.
7) In what ways are "Corporations" part of their natural ecology? What does this imply about their "responsibility" to the environment?
Companies exist within a physical environment and house the people that inhabit an environment. Therefor, companies are responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment and taking care of the workers who exist in both settings.
A "shared stake or responsibility in the condition of the earth and society. "
2) What is the fundamental attribute that stakeholders and shareholders of a given company have in common?
Stakeholders and shareholders are both invested (literally!) in the financial growth and well being of a corporation.
3) In what ways was the Montgomery Bus Boycott of the civil rights era a precursor to the “ethical consumption” discussed in the Dawkins/Lewis article?
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a prominent precursor to “ethical consumption” because it was an exemplified shareholders (purchacers of bus tickets) holding a corporation (the bus company) accountable for not being socially responsible (racism).
4) In reference to the Felton Earls article, what “self interested” responsibility might Corporations have to deal with the issue of Urban Poverty?
Through investing in a neighborhood or providing jobs for residents stricken by poverty , companies could help to make a region more habitable while gaining support from those they have aided. Through these positive business practices, cities are bolstered lives are bettered.
5) What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (SCSR chapter 7) Do you agree with it? Why or why not? To what extent might it be “self-interested” for a company to go above and beyond its prescriptions?
The Community Reinvestment Act“is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate”. This act mandates that banks invest in their local communities.
In total, the CRA has initiated $1.5 trillion in community investment projects!
Although I think that CSR should be voluntary, this act has proven (by its impact) that laws that encourage CSR should represent the wave of the future of improving our communities.
6) In reference to Goodpastor and Matthew’s “Hand of Management” archetype, is it possible for a business to have thoughts? How? Similarly, is a business a “machine”, an “institution”, an “organism”, or some combination of the three?
The “Hand of Management” projects the idea that a business can be morally conscious. A business is made up of people and their thoughts and ideas can be seen in every aspect of business. Also, a business must survive and sustain itself. A business can seem to have thoughts when the ideas of its workers to change current practices and impact the community are used.
I think that business is akin to an organism. It is a working body of many parts and each part has a function. Like a business each part of the organism works together to replenish itself and grow. The well being of the whole organism relies on the health of each parts and its environment.
7) In what ways are "Corporations" part of their natural ecology? What does this imply about their "responsibility" to the environment?
Companies exist within a physical environment and house the people that inhabit an environment. Therefor, companies are responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment and taking care of the workers who exist in both settings.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
When corporations are hurt, do they bleed?
Much of the literature that delves into the issue of corporate social responsibility debates the role (and even consciousness) of large dead physical entities known as companies. One side of the debate (ie. Friedman) holds that Corporations were formed to boost economies and make profits and should not be expected to do more. The other camp (ie. Goodpaster and Matthews) insists that a corporation is akin to a physical being and that the metaphor of such should be taken realistically. This side of the argument holds that a company does, in fact, have a feeling conscience.
But why are we intellectually and academically debating this subject in an unfathomable amount of literature and not acting?
I think that this argument is much simpler than the cynisists and over-emotional social dreamers make it out to be! IF YOUR CORPORATION MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND THEIR IS SOCIAL/ECONOMIC NEED FOR HELP IN A COMMUNITY OF ANY SIZE AND ALSO THE HUNDREDS OF TINY BEINGS IN THE ORGANIZATION WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR WORKPLACE IF THEY HELPED THIS GLOBAL COMMUNITY, THEN SIMPLY GIVE BACK, HELP.
It is very simple really. An organization does not bleed when you injure it, but the people within it do. Let's not go so far as to academically label an entity like a corporation as human, but more simply take into account all of the people within it and what they would like to do.
But why are we intellectually and academically debating this subject in an unfathomable amount of literature and not acting?
I think that this argument is much simpler than the cynisists and over-emotional social dreamers make it out to be! IF YOUR CORPORATION MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND THEIR IS SOCIAL/ECONOMIC NEED FOR HELP IN A COMMUNITY OF ANY SIZE AND ALSO THE HUNDREDS OF TINY BEINGS IN THE ORGANIZATION WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR WORKPLACE IF THEY HELPED THIS GLOBAL COMMUNITY, THEN SIMPLY GIVE BACK, HELP.
It is very simple really. An organization does not bleed when you injure it, but the people within it do. Let's not go so far as to academically label an entity like a corporation as human, but more simply take into account all of the people within it and what they would like to do.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Me vs. Vogel
While reading Chapter 2 of Vogel's The Market For Virtue, Vogel makes a complete argument about the necessity for a corporation to be socially responsible.
He lists some great perks that will result from acting as a socially responsible company:
-lessening government regulation
-high employee morale
-better reputation
I agree with these perks as rational results of Corporate social responsibility. BUT Vogel goes on to dramatically say that being socially responsible lends a business to a competitive advantage in its respective market- because shareholders will deem competitors lacking in csr as "risky." I believe that a competitive advantage amongst shareholders could arrise from great publicity opportunities about the good that the company is doing. However, it is in my oppinion that most people in the market (literally) for shares would not overlook a very successful company that is lagging behind competitors in community service. ALSO I think that there is no way to account for profitability due to increased corporate responsibility and to claim so is a vast stretch the imagination extremely lacking in solid evidence.
He lists some great perks that will result from acting as a socially responsible company:
-lessening government regulation
-high employee morale
-better reputation
I agree with these perks as rational results of Corporate social responsibility. BUT Vogel goes on to dramatically say that being socially responsible lends a business to a competitive advantage in its respective market- because shareholders will deem competitors lacking in csr as "risky." I believe that a competitive advantage amongst shareholders could arrise from great publicity opportunities about the good that the company is doing. However, it is in my oppinion that most people in the market (literally) for shares would not overlook a very successful company that is lagging behind competitors in community service. ALSO I think that there is no way to account for profitability due to increased corporate responsibility and to claim so is a vast stretch the imagination extremely lacking in solid evidence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
