Evaluation of company Q’s attitude toward social responsibility
Company Q’s attitude towards social responsibility can be described as negative. It is clear that the company is highly sensitive to its performance and almost all of its efforts are directed towards profitability. Theoretically, corporate social responsibility concerns a company’s ability to take responsibility for its impact on the society in which it operates (Bhattacharya, Sen &Korschun, 2011).
Although it appears that corporate social responsibility concerns an expensive company’s self-regulation mechanism, it is important to note that it develops good relationships between the company and the society, creating a positive image that improves corporate performance (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011).
The aim of corporate social responsibility is to embrace responsible actions as well as encourage positive impact of the company on a number of parties, including employees, investors, consumers, the environment and communities.
By offering a limited amount of health-conscious and organic products, company Q seems to be concerned with the health issues of the society. However, it is also worth noting that the company is not willing to provide these products, especially because it has started the program only after the issue has been raised by the community.
In addition, the health-conscious and organic products are only provided in limited amounts, yet the community requires these products to cater for its health needs. Moreover, it is clear that the company does not trust its employees. By believing that the employees are a threat to its survival, the company indicates that it does not train the employees to behave responsibly at the workplace, which indicates a negative attitude towards corporate social responsibility.
It is also worth noting that the company’s decision to throw away its day-old products instead of donating to the local food bank does not help the society. In fact, the company is only concerned with making profits and is not concerned with the society in which it operates.
Although it is important to close its outlets in the high-crime areas to reduce the loss of products, it is worth noting that the company has a role to play in reducing the crime in the area. Instead of closing the shops, the company should have considered other methods such as working with the administration, the community and the police service to determine better ways of improving the state of security in the region. Overall, it can be noted that the current attitudes towards social responsibility in Company Q is negative.
Improving corporate social responsibility
An important action that the company can take is to develop a new program or approach that will allow it to change its attitudes towards social responsibility. First, the company should consider developing better relationships with the society, especially by providing healthy food and organic food products in order to improve the wellbeing of the society.
Secondly, it is recommended that the company consider training its employees to act responsibly, especially when dealing with customers and well as improving their attitudes towards the company. In this way, it is possible to ensure that the employees are trusted while at the same time improve the company’s image in the public.
Thirdly, the company should liaise with the society and the administration in the efforts towards increasing security in the area rather than closing its business. For instance, it should provide some financial support to the administration to establish security measures such as a police station in order to improve the security of the area. In this way, the company will not close its shops in the high-crime areas.
References
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., &Korschun, D. (2011). Leveraging Corporate Social Responsibility: The Stakeholder Route to Business and Social Value. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(2), 117–127