Haiti Relief Business

Archive for the ‘Responsibility Business’ Category

Organisations of the 21st century can no longer limit themselves to producing and marketing products or services without any concerns for the impact they have on society. If they want to be trusted by their customers, employees and the public at large, they have to be more socially responsible. One key issue of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) which needs to be addressed is the integration of ethnic minorities in the workplace and the community.

Demographic changes

The lack of proper governmental strategies following the demographic changes of the 50′s and 70′s, has left many British companies struggling to this day to deal with the problem themselves. Many organisations have played a passive role in this integration process by staying within the legal boundaries and are now experiencing difficulties in that area.

A lack of consideration of differences

One of the major reasons behind these integration problems is the lack of awareness and consideration for cultural differences. People from different cultural backgrounds have different sets of norms, different sets of values and different assumptions. This means that we all have different ways of reacting to events, different ways of communicating and different behaviours. We judge the others from our own frame of reference and tend to think that “our way is the right way”.

In a multicultural workforce, this can lead to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, incomprehension, mistrust and disrespect. As a result, rather than getting closer, people distance themselves from those they consider different and groups are formed on the basis of commonalities, whether it is ethnicity, colour, language etc. “Departmental ghettos” start to appear. Often, there are rivalries and tensions. In some instances, these situations can degenerate into discrimination, bullying or racist behaviours.

The law is not enough

Staying within the letter of the law is not enough for organisations experiencing these situations. It is imperative for them to resolve these issues if they want to retain a stable and productive workforce and be regarded as good “corporate citizens”. Organisation can be more socially responsible by contributing to a smooth cultural integration of ethnic minorities into the workplace.

Being more socially responsible

Integration does not mean imposing one way. It means harmonising and synergizing differences. Having a clear and unbiased understanding of the context is the first step toward formulating proper integration strategies. The second step is to develop cultural awareness. Being open to differences, understanding and respecting the other’s cultural background are the key elements in preparing the ground for integration. The third step is to build or rebuild trust. Finally, only when trust has been demonstrated from all sides, solutions can be discussed. It is the step where different norms and values are reconciled and tangible and intangible elements of integration are defined. Building shared ownership of the solutions is at that stage essential to reinforce trust and guarantee implementation.

These steps can take different forms; for example interviews with the various groups involved for step one, training programmes at the levels concerned in the organisation for step two and facilitated workshops for steps three and four involving all concerned or a limited number of influential representatives of each group, who can then intervene as mentors to their members.

Being proactive in the integration process of ethnic minorities is a corporate social duty which can strongly impact the community and contribute to a much more committed workforce.

During the last few months Farnham has been working with a number of clients in the development of programmes, using a training approach normally associated with supporting the integration of home and foreign workforces, to address the growing issue of multicultural tension within the domestic workforce. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, each programme has to be very carefully designed and often involves a number of programmes each with a different perspective at each level. The need to exercise corporate social responsibility is evolving in many different guises, in light of recent events, perhaps this one in particular needs our attention now.

Original article at www.intercultural-training.co.uk

http://www.intercultural-training.co.uk/articles/general/corporate_social_resp.asp

Government regulation and public awareness are external forces that have increased the social responsibility of business. But business decisions are made within the company. Two contrasting philosophies, or models, define the range of management attitudes toward social responsibility; the economic and the socioeconomic model.

According to the traditional concept of business, a firm exists to produce quality goods and services, earn a reasonable profit and provide jobs. In line with this concept, the economic model of social responsibility holds that society will benefit more when business is left alone to produce and market profitable products that society needs. To the manager who adopts this traditional attitude, social responsibility is someone else’s job. After all, stockholders invest in a corporation to earn a return on their investment, not because the firm is socially responsible and the firm is legally obligated to act in the economic interest of its stockholders.

In contrast, some managers believe they have the responsibility not only to stockholders, but also to customers, employees, suppliers, and the general public. This broader view is referred to as the socioeconomic model of social responsibility. It places emphasis not only on profits but also on the impact of business decisions on society. Recently, increasing numbers of managers and firms have adopted the socioeconomic model and they have done so for at least three reasons. First, a business is dominated by the corporate form of ownership and the corporation is a creation of society. Second, many firms are beginning to take pride in their social responsibility records. Third, many business people believe it is in their best interest to take the initiative in this area, prior to their competitors.

The merits of the economic and the socioeconomic models have been debated for years by business owners, managers, customers, and government officials. Each side seems to have four major arguments to reinforce its viewpoint. Proponents of the socioeconomic model maintain that a business must be more than simply seek profits to support their position and they offer that businesses cannot ignore social issues because a business is a part of our society. Moreover, a business has the technical, financial, and managerial resources that are needed to tackle today’s complex social issues. Additionally, by helping resolve social issues, business can create a more stable environment for long-term profitability. Finally, proponents of socially responsible decision making practices argue that these types of tactics can prevent increased government intervention, which would force businesses to do what they fail to do voluntarily. All these arguments are based on the assumption that a business has a responsibility not only to stockholders but also to customers, employees, suppliers and the general public.

Opponents of the socioeconomic model argue that a business should do what it does best; earn a profit by manufacturing and marketing products that people want. Those who support their position argue that business managers are primarily responsible to stockholders, so management must be concerned with providing a return on owners’ investment. Furthermore, corporate time, money and talent should be used to maximize profits, not to solve society’s problems. Also, social problems affect society in general, so individual businesses should not be expected to sole these problems. In addition, social issues are the responsibility of government officials who are elected for that purpose and who are accountable to the voters for their decision. These arguments are obviously based on the assumption that the primary objective of business is to earn profits, whereas government and social institutions should deal with social problems.

Corporate social responsibility can be a heated debate topic depending on who you are talking to. People that are in favor of corporate social responsibility want the companies to give back to the community and other charities because they think it is the right thing to do. Other people believe that companies are not forced to donate money to organizations because they already do enough by providing jobs and services. To really understand corporate social responsibility you must know what it really means. It is commonly described as aligning a company’s activities with the social, economic and environmental expectations of its “stakeholders.” Having defined corporate social responsibility, it is now a good time to look at the two different views associated with this and the arguments for and against it.

The argument for corporate social responsibility is that for the most part people believe it is the correct thing to do if you have the resources to help out. If a big company such as Walmart or Home Depot doesn’t help out the community or donate money, then a lot of people view them as gluttonous and greedy. Most people expect these companies to be heavily involved in charities and donations. For smaller companies such as small family owned businesses, not as much is expected. Perhaps, just to sponsor local sports teams and buy them jerseys or t-shirts. The point is that one of the arguments for corporate social responsibility is that companies that have resources and money should help out the community because it is the right thing to do.

Another argument for corporate social responsibility is that if companies donate money to the community, it will not only benefit the community but also the company. The money donated to communities or charities will obviously support them and provide these organizations with money to carry out their activities. These donations are also good publicity for the company and it shows that they are invested in the community and are willing to help out. Helping out the community also helps create a loyal customer base for their product or service. This is excellent promotion for companies and it may also help with employee morale. If the community sees that that a company or organization is dedicated to the community, then they will be more likely to work for them or buy their services. An example of this would be the Philadelphia Eagles, together with Home Depot, every year they help build a playground in the Philadelphia area. This project is benefiting the community by giving kids a safe place to play and get them off the streets. It also benefits the Philadelphia Eagles by helping build their fan base and customers by showing that they are committed to the community and want to help out. They also advertise the event on their website to show fans what they are doing to help out. This is great advertising and one of the ways that corporate social responsibility benefits both parties.

An argument against corporate social responsibility is that companies already do enough for the community and they shouldn’t have to do anything else to help out. The main supporters of this argument believe that companies already provide jobs and a product or service to the community and that in itself helps out. They are not responsible for what happens outside their company and having the company in the community is helping out enough. They also pay taxes and that is helping the community out already. Some people also believe that a company should focus on improving itself and its product and the money that is spent helping the community could be used to help improve the company or product. Right now many companies are trying to survive the hard times so they can’t take there eye off the ball, they have to focus on core business. This argument can be made for a lot of companies, however most companies help out the community a little.

An additional argument against corporate social responsibility is that those who are most capable should address social issues. Those in the corporate world are not equipped to deal with social problems. The management and leaders of most companies specialize in finance, marketing, and management and most of them are not very knowledgeable when it comes to societal problems. Because the knowledge and skills are not available to make the right decisions on where the money should go, there involvement in societal issues might make social issues worse. Some argue that when companies stick to what they do best then they are helping society out in that way. However, if they pretend to know what their doing and get involved in social issues it could go horribly wrong because of there lack of experience in the field.

Overall, corporate social responsibility is a very profound topic and one that has so many arguments for and against it. One of the many arguments for corporate social responsibility is that if a company has the resources, it should help out because it’s the right thing to do. Another is that it helps both the community and the company if it is done in the right way. Two of the several arguments against corporate social responsibility are that companies already do enough for the community by providing jobs and services or products. Additionally, those in the corporate world are not equipped to deal with social problems. My opinion is that corporate social responsibility is a good thing if it is done in the right way. A company or organization that has the resources should help out the community and do research to make sure their money is going to the right cause. I also believe that this would benefit both parties greatly if done the right way and is an excellent way to help both companies and communities work together for a common goal.