Sustainable Management Futures - Essay Example

? Sustainable Management Futures Presented Sustainable Management Futures The labor party under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has been blamed for letting the market be controlled by capitalism in favor of the rich and have ignored the middle and low class citizens who have continuously struggled to meet their needs under stiff competition presented by a capitalist market. The campaign issue between the Conservative Party and the Labor Party was thus drawn to be an ideological challenge between Milliband’s advocacy of free market which promotes morality and increasing a link between contribution and the reward related to effort and outcome, and the “let capitalism rip” ideology under Blair and Brown. Though Cameron blamed Labor for excesses of the recent years for what he termed as turning a blind eye to corporate excesses, the idea of a responsible capitalism was the main agenda behind Cameron’s campaigns. The main question is whether there is any rationality in advocating for a more responsible capitalism, or if here are any ethics and moral standing in capitalism. Keat (2009) argues a distinct ethical consideration has a crucial role in political reasoning. This is against the neutralist restriction of legitimate grounds regarding state actions on moral considerations of rightness. In other words, legal considerations must involve not only the matters of justice, but also the distribution of social wealth, opportunities in life, and the general survival chances. This implies; an ethical system has to be concerned with the pursuit of collective goals, and safeguarding the same good in the country. Therefore, the main question is whether “let capitalism rip ideology” under conservative party meets the above conditions. Herbermas (1996) states that there cannot be any possible exclusion of ethics from politics, but any political ideology has to be based on nature of ethical reasoning in which the concept of identity and self understanding are central. Ikerd (2008) elaborates the most basic law of science portray that unrestrained capitalism cannot by any chance be sustainable. In other words, according to Ikerd, all economic activities are naturally individualistic; as in capitalism there is no any economic incentive aimed at doing anything for the sole benefit others, and does not offer any thought towards the future generations. This means that any market system has to involve sustainable resource utilization and has to be mindful of each and every individual including the generations to come. Gray (2008) notes while a free market are the best type of market in advocating ethics and morality due to a direct link between contribution and rewards, free markets can corrode some characters while still enhancing others. Therefore, the results of a free market according to Gray will depend much on how one envisions life. Moreover, the thought that free markets emerge spontaneously with the removal of state interference in the market has been vehemently opposed. Therefore, free markets according to Gray do not indicate the absence of a government. In other words, in free markets, the markets depend on a system of laws, which decides what is to be traded or not. Hence, free markets due to presence of stringent of laws governing what is to be traded always involve an aspect of moral constraints policed by governments, and depend on property rights that are created and enforced by the government. Free markets have however led to loss of efficacy and productivity due to redistribution of wealth through taxes. All the same free markets are equivalent to having values in businesses so that organizations operate to standards of moral concepts in a pluralistic society (Griffiths n,d). Therefore, the market fundamentalism proposed by the rightwing was a harsh market dogma that erodes the market of the sustainability and responsibility befitted in a free market with its constraints and limitations. The core of the dogma, which was the assertion that such removal of government control in capitalism always results to better produce results; assumed by reasoning that the private sector would spend money more wisely than the government itself, business regulation has to be kept at the minimum, and the taxes were a social evil necessary to be cut to the minimum (Eagle 2011). Such ‘capitalism rip’ was therefore a way to permit and excuse the excesses of the corporate sector mostly linked to soaring remuneration and this justified tearing of the social fabric in cutting taxes to fund the poor and middle classes. These are the main ideologies under capitalism. The effects would be lack of sustainable use of resources, which would endangers the future generations, while affecting the poor and middle class in making ends meet in a highly individualistic market that has no room for the social norms. This implies the capitalism ideology under the conservative party had nor morals or ethical standing and would lead to a segmented market that favors the rich, while oppressing the poor. This is against the social ethics and morals in a corporate world. Milton Friedman was one of the theorists strictly advocating against the Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR ideology in the corporate world. Freidman was one of the architects of what is considered today as a piece of work that disparages CSR and the move by businesses promoting the CSR credentials. Friedman (1970) argues that any businessmen talking and advocating for CSR are puppets of intellectual forces that have undermined the basis of a free society over the recent past decades. According to this statement, Friedman’s believed its only people who can have responsibility. Businesses and the people hired by these business owners have a direct responsibility to the employers, in meeting their desires which are obtaining profits from the business activities. Therefore, according to Friedman, there is nothing wrong with intense capitalism whether businessmen utilize their knowledge and skills to exploit resources for their business sake, and these businesses cannot be treated as people; implying there are no constraints in business activities aimed at making profits in businesses. Friedman (1970) noted that responsibility can only be linked to an individual and not a business. In this case, he tries to deassemble the personification of business into individual businesses, and presents these as collectives of individuals working under the owners; in other words employees have no other business than to work and create a profit for the owner, and not to be concerned with the idea of whether the business should not benefit the society or not. In a free market according to Friedman, there are no workers with a social conscience. In the above argument, Friedman largely denies that a business exists in society and has a responsibility to pay back to the same society that makes it to attain profits. In other words, Friedman advocates for an individualistic market that has no room for the interest of others. However, Kasparov (2008) argues that if a society reaches what may be termed as a state of surplus and their survival is no longer in doubt, individuals in such circumstances have a luxury of indulging their moral character. In other words, business competes for survival in a fiercely competitive market, but the same business has a moral character embedded in them, which can only be practiced after attaining a surplus. CSR is one way of sharing this surplus in thanking the same society or customers that have made the business to grow to such levels. Friedman’s assertion on CSR is therefore wrong to this extent. Even under capitalism, businesses have to reconsider the society in which they operate. In addition as Hemphill & Lillevik (2011) elaborates, such capitalist systems with no CSR as advocated by Friedman would lead to market failure. Inappropriate macroeconomics policies, excessive speculations, and inappropriately valued currency, abuse of monopoly, among others are all reasons that would lead to market failure leading to collapse of the capitalistic business. CSR is therefore necessary to ensure sustainability of these businesses even in ‘capitalism rip’ ideology. On the other hand, Norman Bowie in his neoclassical model on the moral minimum argues that in their pursuit for profits, business managers are obligated to act to a minimum level of morals, but are not obliged to exceed this minimum. In other words, managers in pursuit for profits in a market have the obligation to obey a moral minimum by first meeting certain moral obligations which once met will open the door for profit making (Lane 2011). Bowie explains the moral obligations to be as follows: the moral to cause no harm, the moral to actively prevent any harm and the obligation to do public good. Preventing harm and doing good to the society are the most important obligations that businesses have to meet to the minimum. In the capitalism rip ideology advocated by the conservatives, capitalism will produce losers and winners, and the winners have to be forced to help the losers. This forcing hurts everyone, and redistribution discourages winners from producing and losers from trying (Rich 2007). These are main arguments behind the capitalist ideology. However, in capitalism the selfish virtues are in repute as creating profits is the main aim according to Friedman. Virtue in such a system losses its loveliness and the social order becomes impossible (Wilson 1995). Such a market would not be feasible, meaning that businesses have to have a bare minimum of morals as Bowman argues. In other words, the neoclassical model of bare minimum morals negates the capitalist rip ideology, and requires any business to have a bare minimum CSR in the society though exercising their minimum morals to prevent harm to the society and to promote the good of the society. John Lewis Corporate Social Responsibility Doh & Guay (2006) explains corporate Social responsibility as strategic actions by a firm, aimed at furthering the social good far above the interests of the individual firm and beyond that which is demanded by law. SCR indicates that corporations besides strategizing their operations in provision of services and goods have an obligation to provide other essentials that transcend their responsibilities to stakeholders. CSR may involve participation in social welfare, or ensuring the organization improves the environment in which it operates John Lewis partnership plc is a large retail chain dealing with retail business, and based in the UK. The chains are operated under the John Lewis brand name, or the Waitrose brand names. John Lewis deals in stock virtually in any type of merchandise, ranging from household goods, electrical equipment, furnishing, giftware, home technology appliances and devices, apples, beef, chicken all types of daily products fruits, fashionable clothing, pears eggs and mushrooms (Bloomberg Business Week, 2011). The chains have a wide range of merchandise that suits any class of customers, and this has aided the chains in marketing campaigns. In addition, the chains in their line of merchandise have a wide range of insurance products that include; weddings, travel, pet insurance, travel, and life cover assurance services. Finch (2010) explains that Waitrose is still in on a fast moving track aimed at transforming the up market food chains into a full consumer brand name in all their branches in UK and in other countries. Waitrose has a strategy to compete with other global names such as Heinz and Kellogg’s, which are the leading fast moving consumer goods brand names. The main strategy according to Finch would be to take a creative approach and taking the products as close to the customers are possible. There is a mutual understanding with the partner at the highest levels possible to work towards this goal, and this understanding has seen the chains rapidly expand in and outside the U.K market. CSR at John Lewis The social climate of a society has a large effect to every organization and its operations. Social factors that affect the market include the demographic factors, values and beliefs in a society, and other factors at the society level (Fortenberry 2010). Laura & Bourlakis (2009) further argues that Corporate Social Responsibility plays an important role in the operations of any supply chain. According to Laura & Bourlakis, CSR has a direct bearing to risks in supply chain management. This is because a company has to be socially ethical to its stakeholders, who include the suppliers in order to receive supplies in the right time, right quality and have a continued positive relationship with such suppliers. Laura & Bourlakis argues that Waitrose is one of the best examples of companies with high values of CSR policies. Social aspects play a large role in supply management, and the fact that Waitrose has the best SCR practices indicates that the social factors are favorable to Waitrose operations. John Lewis Partnership is the largest UK partnership type of business, and the longest lasting employee owned business (Henry 2011). The more than 70,000 permanent partners have a stake in sharing the profits and benefits of a fast growing business with a high turnover. This is a strategic approach in CSR. The business is a responsible retail owned by partners, with a culture and belief that the long term future and successful performance of the business has to be best served by respecting the interests of all stakeholders; stakeholders include customers, partners, suppliers and the wider community. John Lewis approach in operating their business makes their operations to revolve around the needs of all the stakeholders, which makes the business to care for the needs of the partners, including the community in which the business operates. In fact, according to the chairmen of John Lewis Partnership, Charlie Mayfield, though John Lewis Partnership faces major challenges in its CSR policies, similar to other major retailers, the energy and passion of the business partners, who are the co-owners of the business, drive the work of the business to operate at even more sustainable and responsible limits (John Lewis, 2011). According to John Lewis (2011) CSR has been part of the way to do all businesses. The commitment of the business in acting responsibly is strengthened and rooted in values of respect, fairness, and honesty, in sharing the rewards and responsibilities of ownership; and by conducting the business with integrity and courtesy. These are the ideals of the founder, as described in the partnership’s constitution; this is the inspiration behind the company’s success (John Lewis, 2011). One of these unique CSR in John Lewis was observed in 2010/2011, where the partnership took a more strategic approach in CSR policies, which resulted to the ‘Bringing Quality to Life’ in ‘John Lewis’ and “the Waitrose way,” a policy aimed at helping customers to make more informed and sustainable choices in purchasing products from the partnership (John Lewis, 2011). Another CSR program in John Lewis Partnership is observed in the construction of a 650,000 automated distribution center, between junctions 13-14 of the M1, UK. According to a case study by Gazeley (n,d), the company is committed to sustainable development aimed at reducing the long term environmental impact in all its buildings, making the partnership to fully implement green technologies. According to this case study, the building has a wide range of eco measures, which include rain water harvesting, recycling energy, efficient lighting, low water usage appliances, among other sustainable faculties, making the building to score highly in LEED certification, which accredits green projects (Gazeley, n.d). The CSR at John Lewis in using environmentally sustainable technologies makes the company to adopt green building technologies in all its construction projects, which amounts to abiding with high degree of ethics in the society. Mostly, to evaluate a business commitment to CSR, the society compares the actions of such business and the CSR rhetoric, with the persistent gaps in such comparison being used to judge the company (Ruud & Ruud, n,d). The society in most cases encourages socially responsible businesses to act on only profit based actions that improve, or which do not harm the society, compared to those which create wealth for a privileged few (Ruud & Ruud, n,d). This makes John Lewis to concentrate much in activities and operations, which are profit making and friendly the community and environment. To portray the company’s commitment to CSR, all CSR since 2010 are aligned with the GRI’s G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, at a self declared application of level B (John Lewis, 2010). John Lewis partnership CSR is not only limited to the partners. The Launching of the John Lewis Foundation to all suppliers of the company ensures the company funds and manages projects that support and service communities from whom the company sources its products (Henry 2011). The Partnership through this foundation has established channels through which the larger society, who serve the business with products have to benefit from as an extension of the CSR policies to the communities through community projects, not only in UK, but also in other locations where the Partnership has some interests. In other words, a business that operates in a society needs the contributions of all the society members; a policy that has made John Lewis Partnership successful in a competitive market (Idowu & Louche, 2011). Waitrose has values and beliefs indicating there is value in working with best producers and growers; making Waitrose to build reputation in quality, safety, and reputation of food sold in supermarkets and other retail outlets (Corporate Leadership, 2008). Being a leading textile supplier in the UK, Waitrose has suppliers in most cotton producing countries to purchase from the best quality, and dealing directly with producers and suppliers. This proximity to customers are among driving forces of a partnership which opts to attain a socially responsible stand in the market (Bichta 2003). There is a continued development in the textile industry mostly in the UK, and as earlier explained; consumers have continuously demanded far and wide ranging CSR undertakings from companies dealing with textile products. Alwood et al (2009) elaborates that some of the wide ranging practices that are making consumers to continuously demand more responsibilities form textile companies include the use of toxic chemicals on cotton and modification of cotton farming methods mostly from developing countries. Waitrose as a leading textile supplier in the UK is directly involved in CSR aimed at encouraging the use of organic cotton, and other chemical free raw materials in the textile industry. John Lewis partnership, besides being the largest partnership in UK, the partnership has some of the most elaborate CSR policies globally, which makes the company to adopt ethical business practices in all its operations. These include avoiding technologies which may harm the environment by adopting green technologies, participating actively in communal projects, making all stakeholders as partners in the business, and positively contributing to the efforts of the U.K government to ensure sustainable products in the market. These efforts include reduction of synthetic cotton to embrace organic and environmental friendly materials. John Lewis Partnership is therefore an example of companies with more intensive and elaborate CSR policies in all their operations globally. References List Allwood et al. 2009. Well dressed? The present and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the UK. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing Bichta, C., 2003. Corporate Socially Responsible (CSR) Practice in the Context of Greek Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10; 12-24. Bloomberg Business, 2011. John Lewis Partnership Plc. Bloomberg Business week, 7 October http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=874389 [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Corporate Leaders, 2008. The john Lewis Partnership Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability. http://www.corporate-leaders.com/index.cfm/page:csr-reports/id:the-john-lewis-partnership-corporate-responsibility-and-sustainability-report-2008 [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Doh, J.P., & Guay, R.T., 2006.Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the United states: An institutional-stakeholders perspective. Journal of Management Studies. 43(1). Eagle, A., 2011. Comment: An end to the greed creed: Market fundamentalism's dogma is now exposed. Labor must look to build a new moral economy. The Guardian Sept. 23. Available through Proquest. Finch,J., 2010. Waitrose launches UK brand expansion and plans more foreign outlets. The Guardian. 14 March http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/14/waitrose-brand-expansion-marks-spencer-retail [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Fortenberry, J.L., 2010. Health care marketing: tools and technique. London: Jones & Bartlett Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York. The New York Times Company. Gazeley, John Lewis Case Study. http://gazeley.com/fr-FR/downloads/our_customers/JohnLewis_CaseStudy.pdf [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Gray, J., 2008. Does the free Market Corrode Moral Character? It depends. http://www.templeton.org/market/PDF/BQ%20Market%20Essays.pdf [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms Cambridge: Polity Press. Hemphill, T., & Lillevik, W., 2011. The Global Economic Ethic Manifesto: Implementing a Moral Values Foundation in the Multinational Enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 (2), 213-230. Henry, A., 2011. Understanding Strategic management, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, W.C. & Jones, G.R., 2008. Strategic management: An integrated approach. MA: Cengage Learning Idowu, S.O. & Louche C., 2011.Theory and Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility. NY: Springer Ikerd, J., 2008. Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Ethics and Morality. Problems of Sustainable development. 3(1), 13-22. John Lewis Partnership, 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2011. http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/content/dam/cws/pdfs/our%20responsibilities/our%20progress%20and%20reports/John_Lewis_Partnership_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_report_2011.pdf [Accessed 10 April. 2012] John Lewis Partnership, 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2010. http://www.flag.co.uk/our-work/john-lewis-partnership/corporate-social-responsibility-report-2010 [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Kaparov, G., 2008. Does the free Market Corrode Moral Character? Yes, but… http://www.templeton.org/market/PDF/BQ%20Market%20Essays.pdf [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Keat, R., 2009. Choosing Between capitalisms: Habermas, Ethics and politics. Res Publica. 15; 355-376. Lane, R., 2010. Introduction to Ethics http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/professional/lecture19_csr3.html [Accessed 10 April. 2012] Laura &, S., & Bourlakis, M., 2009. The evolution from corporate social responsibility to supply chain responsibility: the case of Waitrose. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 14(4), 291-302. Pelza, J. and Falkenburg, L. (2009) The Role of Collaboration in Achieving Corporate Social Responsibility Objectives. Berkley, University of California Press Rich, K., 2007. How Moral is Capitalism. Forbes, 179(3), 27 Ruud K.J., & Ruud, N. W., law and ethics: Society and Corporate Social Responsibility: is the Focus Shifting?. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics. Wilson, J.Q., 1995. Capitalism and Morality. The Public Interest. 121; 42-60. Read More