Executive Summary
This paper touches the aspects of corporation social responsibility and the challenges, the world faces with each time a new organization appears and offers its services. It is crucially important to offer proper strategic options in order to be able to control situation, protect environment, and still take leading positions in the chosen industry.
Three major questions about corporation social responsibility and the conflicts between activities, demands, and needs will be discussed in this paper. Personal opinion of how to make an organization more effective and not harmful for environment and society will be offered as well.
Strategic options for companies with a mix of stakeholders
Nowadays, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is widely discussed by numerous organizations because its main duty is to perform business and, at the same time, to respect the rights of all individuals and to support human welfare (Manakkalathil & Rudolf 1995, p. 29).
Numerous researches have already showed that the role of stakeholders influences positive development of social responsibility images (Maignan & Ralston 2002, p. 497), this is why this sphere has to be studied thoroughly. There is a separate group of stakeholders, called a “mix of stakeholders”, that includes already overlooked stakeholders or those representatives, who decrease own relevance to the particular project.
This mix of stakeholders may touch upon specific aspects, which may become crucial for any other stakeholder (Franklin 2001, p. 288). And such strategic options like improving private health services or prevention of possible inflectional diseases, possibilities to become the cheapest and the best simultaneously, and domination in the chosen niche of industry by means of multiple donations from different stakeholders.
Conflict between luxury branding and environmental concern
The cult of luxury branding becomes more and more prevalent day by day (Greene 2008, p. 48), and the concerns about environment, its pollution, and its challenges are also burning enough to pay more and more attention to them (Vos, Sapat, & Thai 2002, p. 305). The conflict among these two concepts is obvious, because people are always eager to have wealth and health, and do not bother how to find out the necessary balance.
Sustainable business is one of those, who actually cares about these both issues and try to solve this conflict, providing possible benefits to protect environment, and at the same time, be interesting and popular among rich people. The investigations prove that green policy is inherent to many developing companies, and even a new rebellion technological revolution cannot be stopped, the activities of sustainable organizations should prevent the disaster (Fields 2002, 142).
Luxury branding is a good source to earn money and pick out reliable and constant financial supporters, however, when we talk about money, the issue of safe environment becomes less important. It turns out to be very difficult to solve this dilemma and its outcomes become crucial for many business organizations, its stakeholders, and its individuals.
Effects on company performance
“Organizations need to be able to manage both change and current business to achieve sustainable growth” (Rogers 2004, p. 21), and also cope with the problems, which prevent citizens from safe existence.
People face numerous problems, which cannot be solved within a short period of time, and such challenges like pollution of environment, child labour abuses, or unanswered health issues bothers many organizations (Guarnieri & Kao 2008, p. 36). However, there are always some kind of hope that proves the ability to bridge the dilemma and fight against the conflicts within organizations and the world.
And one of the first steps, which have to be taken, is the recognition of the problem and identification that human activities, aimed at satisfying personal demands, are the grounds for environmental problems (Quinn, JB & Quinn, JF 2000, p. 45). Evaluation of risks, identification of brands, and attention to human resources – these points have to be taken into account as well in order to solve dilemma and conflict of human needs and demands.
Personal evaluation of corporate social responsibility
Porter and Kramer (2006) admit that government and numerous activists become involved into the development of sustainable business, however, remain to be unable to predict social consequences (p. 78).
I think that the activities of such organizations like Toyota, Volvo, or Whole Foods Market may be introduced like the best examples of how to carry out their corporate social responsibilities and offered for the companies (Converse, Chateau Latour, or Artemis S. A), led by Mr. Pinault. First of all, it is necessary to pay much attention to such issues like private health services, because only health workers are able to present good products and bring benefits to the company.
Another important idea that has to be admitted by Mr. Pinault is that social responsibilities imply certain pricing, and this pricing is closely connected to society and its well-being (Smith 2003, p. 52). This is why it is necessary to care about the financial support of each organization and not to waste money on searching more investors, because Mr. Pinault may allow any kind of investing independently, but concentrate on such issues like health, personal achievements, and care about workers.
List of References
Fields, S 2002, ‘Sustainable Business Makes Dollars & Sense’, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 3, pp. 142.
Franklin, AL 2001, ‘Involving Stakeholders in Organizational Processes’, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 24, no.4, pp.385-403
Greene, L 2008, ‘The Teen Takeover’, The Daily Mail, October, p.48.
Guarnieri, R. & Kao, T 2008, ‘Leadership and CSR – a Perfect Match’, People & Strategy, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 34-41.
Maignan, I., Ralston, D 2002, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from Businesses’ Self Presentations’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No.3, pp.497-514.
Manakkalathil, J., Rudolf, E 1995, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in a Globalizing Market’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 1, pp.29-32.
Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R 2006, ‘Strategy & Society’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Quinn, JF & Quinn, JB 2000, ‘Forging Environmental Markets’, Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 16, No.3, pp. 45.
Rogers, M 2004, ‘Capabilities for Sustainable Business Success’, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No.1, pp.21.
Smith, C 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?’, California Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 52-76.
Vos, JJ, Sapat, A, & Thai, KV 2002, ‘Blaming the Victim: The Role of Decision-Makers in the Occurrence of Environmental Injustice’, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 23, pp. 305.