This essay is a critical analysis of the behaviours that Company Q has demonstrated with respect to societal duty. In kernel. Company Q’s behaviours. while sensible reactions to keep fiscal viability and avoid part to employee malfeasance. really show a profound solicitousness that consequences in a negative public image that will stop up bing it more in the long term. I will offer solutions that will supply a cost nest eggs while maintaining Company Q from doing farther awkward mistakes.
A Critical Analysis of Company Q’s Social Responsibility
Unfortunately. Company Q has non made wise determinations as it relates to societal duty. There are studies that the company 1 ) chose to shut much-needed food market shops in economically down ( read: minority-occupied ) parts of town. 2. ) chose to get down offering health-conscious nutrient points merely after it could turn up the highest-margin merchandises it could happen ; and 3 ) ashamedly refused to supply day-old nutrient to the local nutrient bank under the protections that it was concerned that its employees would steal the nutrient alternatively of donating it. The end of this analysis is non merely to foreground this absurd behaviour and logical thinking but besides to offer solutions that are contributing to run intoing social-responsibility concerns and keeping fiscal viability. With any hope. Company Q will mind the advocate and institute immediate alterations.
The intelligence late reported the shuttering of two of Company Q’s food market shops in Neighborhood A and Neighborhood B. Although the company gave no public statement about the nature of these shuttings. public fiscal revelations indicate the principle: The shops were non profitable. Of class. in a free-market economic system. companies have the option to shut unprofitable shops. But in add-on to being a free market. we are besides an economic system that operates on high societal principles—or. at the really least. we should be. Company Q seemingly missed this memoranda when it was sent 30 old ages ago. With these shops removed from both vicinities. where are the occupants of those vicinities supposed to shop? And with the remotion of the shops. what drift do the few other grocers have to maintain monetary values sensible for people of that socio-economic degree?
I recognize that a possible rebuttal to any of the aforesaid inquiries is. “If the occupants are non shopping at that place and seting money into the shop. why would we be expected to remain unfastened? ” I would offer that such a rebuttal is wrongheaded. Possibly a better inquiry may be. “What are we making to do occupants to shop elsewhere or to non pass more money with us? ” Does Company Q offer the nutrient picks these occupants want? Is the layout of your shops conducive to these occupants? Are the monetary values excessively high? Do the staff you employ in these shops look like the occupants who shop at that place? If the reply is “no” to any of these inquiries. we will hold unbarred one of many possible grounds why the shop is unprofitable. It is so Company Q’s duty to turn to these issues alternatively of packing up store and traveling to the more flush countries of town. where they are non concerned that a jar of pickles may be $ 40.
With a weight epidemic harrying the state. Company Q made its determination to offer health-conscious nutrient menu merely after it could happen the nutrients that provided the highest border of net income for it. That is likely why there is a famine of health-food options in its shop. and likely why the monetary values are about twice those of its rivals. This message translates to the community as: “If Company X can gain obscenely from offering health-food options to its consumers. it will so be concerned with offering healthy options. Otherwise. allow the American fleshiness epidemic fury on unfettered—not our job! ”
The above message is a clear job. and it does non hold to be. It is possible for Company Q to offer plentifulness of health-food options while still doing a net income. though the net income may non be every bit obscene as the one it is presently doing. Company Q can prosecute in more impactful dialogues with its providers or can shop the market for health-food rivals who would be willing to provide its ample consumer base with its nutrient. In our old mention to hive away shuttings. Company Q could besides offer more health-food options in more of its shops as opposed to choose 1s. Or Company Q could offer the same nutrient merchandises but ab initio do less of a net income on it by offering price reductions on it ab initio as a kind of temptation to clients to go interested and advance the nutrient to their web of friends and household. This possibility could theoretically make increased demand for the healthy nutrient and let more profitableness for the company in the long tally. Company profitableness and run intoing social-responsibility duties as it relates to our country’s fleshiness epidemic need non be at discrepancy.
A local nutrient bank—one that serves the indigent—requested the contribution of day-old nutrient from Company Q. but Company Q responded that it was concerned that it would lose gross because it was concerned that its employees would pilfer the nutrient alternatively of donating it.
This response is dissing to its ain employees and to the nutrient bank. If Company Q is concerned that its employees are reprobates. the company’s bigger concern should be the unity of its employee-verification procedure. There are many solutions available: have the food-bank employees collect the nutrient themselves. denominate a specific employee to manage nutrient contributions. do a tax-deductible contribution in the sum of the destroyed nutrient alternatively. Almost any response is better than what Company Q provided.
There is no inquiry that every company has a right to prosecute net incomes. and I recognize that Company Q is finally trying to make merely that. However. it is imperative that Company Q realize that it has a duty to lend to society something other than merchandises and services. Consumers are interested in making concern with forward-thinking companies who recognize their duty in impeling the “soul” of our society frontward. With the advocate provided. Company Q can convey itself in line with many other companies in being genuinely client centric.