Definition of Social Responsibility
Businesses are always forced to balance between their economic pursuit and the general welfare of the society. It is a principle of social responsibility that determines how the public perceives a business entity. If the public develops a negative perception about a business, it can be detrimental because the business entirely depends on the same society to sell its products. This means that businesses cannot ignore the principle of social responsibility (Rossi, 2001).
Company Q did not act in public interest by shutting down their stores in the crime-prone areas. They totally ignored the fact that people would want to buy products from their grocery. In effect, their customers had to walk longer distances to get the same goods. Ethically, Company Q should have sought to beef up security in the area or seek government intervention instead of quitting altogether. While quitting may have helped them to avoid unnecessary losses, it was completely insensitive to the plight of the general public.
It was the reason why they had to complain to the company to open up the shops and serve them once again. Essentially, the company rushed into making the decision to shut up their premises due to insecurity. The most ethical thing that they should have been was to relocate to a more secure building around if they had no controls over the condition of insecurity. This would have benefited them economically as well as taken care of the interest of the general society (Rossi, 2001).
The decision to stock only high margin items was self-serving and direly insensitive to the public. In fact, it must have generated public outcry considering that people had had to do without the services of the shop for long. It appears that the company was not persuaded that they needed to resume business in the locality. For them, it was a mere publicity exercise because people had complained to them.
Had they observed the principle of social responsibility, they would have conducted a simple inquiry to determine the type of goods the people direly needed. This would have effectively compensated for the several days they had been out of operation. However, they chose to do what only suited them as a profit-making firm.
Quite certainly, this decision must have caused more public uproar than the closure had done because the company was basically repeating the same mistake. It was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, considering that selling goods that most people don’t need is basically the same as closing down the business (May, Cheney, & Roper, 2007).
Welfare of Employees
It is socially immoral to throw away food when there were multitudes of people who desperately need it. This was the mistake that the management did when they decided to throw away food instead of donating it to charity. While they would effectively argue that they spent fortunes to make the foods, throwing it away was even more expensive.
For example, if the government was to intervene in supporting the food bank, they would increase taxes to raise money for the project. This would mean that Company Q would have obtained raw materials more expensively and pay more for transporting the goods. In the end, these costs would significantly cut down on their profits and it would end up losing more money than they would have lost in donating food to the food bank.
Essentially, Company Q only postponed their social responsibility, but did not escape from it. Ethically, people should use the little invaluable tools in their hands to help humanity before it turns against them. It is a social venture that should bring satisfaction to people, especially the feeling that you made an impact on someone else life (Rossi, 2001).
Corporate Responsibility to the Society
It was wrong for Company Q to cast negative aspersions on its employees. The management felt that employees would use the idea of donations to siphon products from the firm. Realistically, there should be no problem with employees “stealing” day-old products because they would still be thrown away anyway. Thus, the argument that employees would steal the food in pretence that they are going to donate was irrelevant.
A socially responsible firm should at all times treat its employees with respect and respects their social welfare. It was, therefore, evident that the firm was not doing its moral duty by purporting that its employees were untrustworthy and likely to steal food meant for charity. Besides, when one decides to donate, he or she should do it from the heart by allowing those entrusted to distribute it to do their job without interference. In this regard, Company Q missed the point by micromanaging how the food stuffs were distributed to the needy (Zerk, 2006).
In conclusion, it’s almost impossible for businesses to neglect their social responsibility. They can only do it at their own peril because businesses thrive on the basis of public perception. If the public develops a negative perception of a firm, there are high likelihoods that the firm will collapse.
References
May, S., Cheney, G. & Roper, J. (2007). The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rossi, A. S. (2001). Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zerk, J. A. (2006). Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.