Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility - Essay Example

Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Topic Social Media and CSR Preparation: According to report presented by Coombs , social media inrecent times has been held responsible for high levels of social media crisis as well as corporate failures. It has been estimated that nearly 50% of the failures have been accounted towards issues related to sustainability or weak CSR activities (Godfrey, Merrill and Hansen, 2009). The case of two companies, Maersk Group and American BP, was discussed to compare the use of social media and its effects on business CSR performance. The discussion that supported social media and CSR suggested that companies need to engage in and not broadcast their CSR attempts and also make efforts to provide relevant feedback to queries posted on social media. It has been agreed that conversations on the social media platform cannot be controlled and might sometimes act against the company on getting blown out of proportions. So, in order to manage such strike backs, it is important for companies to remain active in answering and engaging in conversations. This might also benefit in promotion of CSR initiatives and engaging in new ideas that might act positively for the company. In addition to this, it is also important to be aware of wants of the consumers and this needs the company to be a good listener (Brady, 2003). Maersk Group has been quite active with their strategy of using Facebook for CSR communication. The company used a lot of pictures and demonstrations on the social media platform to effectively build trust over social media network. Success of the social media strategy can be entrusted on its rhetorical approach (Roberts and Zahay, 2012). This is not to say that use of visual images and data alone can contribute towards success of CSR communication through social media. In case of American BP, exposure of ill practices went forward to foreground lies presented on social media platform by the company. The seminar discussion: The seminar began with the discussion on how Social Media can indeed be one of the powerful tools for engaging stakeholders. It has power to increase the reach of companies, source innovative ideas as well as to create an effective feedback mechanism in order to facilitate engagement of stakeholders with the company (Qualman, 2011). Companies are using Facebook, Twitter, Coke’s Live positively and also SAP sustainability report to enlarge the scope and reach of their CSR initiatives and increase interaction with end consumers (Borges, 2009). The discussion went forward to highlight main threats associated with social media and CSR attempts. Some of the ideas discussed in the seminar were new such as the discussion relating to the immense lack of control mechanisms that can provide supervision on the social media platform. The messages that get posted on company social web pages can also face misinterpretation and misrepresentation issues. The company might perceive its CSR initiatives to be one of the best in class, but consumers might have a different opinion about its effectiveness. Hence, it becomes important to align CSR activities in line with stakeholder views and opinions. Furthermore, it is advised that companies present the most authentic data on their CSR initiative so as to create a positive impression about company values and aspirations (Mergel and Greeves, 2012). Short Reflection: The web does not provide data that might allow for data analysis to comprehend the way in which information posted on social media affects society (Mitchell, et al., 2012). The social media platform can be often used as a part of business strategy like, promotional activities. However, there is a very high possibility that it might defray from the original context and move towards an entirely different paradigm that is unrelated to business strategy. Topic 2: Whistle blowing and workplace ethics Preparation: It is an ethical responsibility to raise concerns about foregrounding these matters for grabbing attention of the concerned authorities, which might cause harm to a majority of stakeholders in the business context. The ethics of whistle blowing state that it is a business ethic to speak up against any wrong doing (Ray, 2006). These could be matters relating to taxation policies, money laundering and other ill business practices, which oblige the employee legally to report for such issues. The act of whistle blowing needs to be protected in order to make it stronger and supportive towards good practices of corporate governance. The whistleblowing policy is an attempt towards empowering employees by providing them with necessary power or abilities that is imperative for reporting an unethical activity within the company. This is because experiences of employees have indicated that it is essential to have a good degree of connection between knowledge of employees about various internal channels and the act of whistleblowing. It is also important that employees are made to believe that their actions against wrongdoings shall be regarded with utmost seriousness and shall probe investigations. Certain studies have also suggested that in this event, if the company goes unresponsive towards such reporting, company information has high chances of being leaked out, thereby inviting external probe and investigations. Lastly, employees should be made to feel confident and assured that they shall not have to suffer personal losses like, transfers and job cuts, in the event of reporting a wrongdoing. Studies have also indicated that when employees know that their personal lives shall not be impacted for reporting unethical business practices, they are more likely to report for a wrongdoing (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). The seminar discussion: The seminar was directed towards undertaking the whistle blowing activity as a policy measure within organizations. It was believed that companies should frame a well-written policy for whistle blowing within their corporate governance policies in order to empower employees for reporting any wrongdoings. In one of the recent reviews, it was observed that about 62% of the whistleblowers had lost jobs, 18% were either transferred or harassed at workplace and about 11% reported loss in salaries or responsibilities at job (Rimoldi, 2006). These figures reflect the critical nature of the whistle blowing activity and difference in outcomes of the whistle blowing act. Whenever we put our money into a business, we want to be assured that investments are safe and are being used for productive purposes. The recent financial crisis blew out of proportions on account of wrongdoings within financial institutions and absence of whistleblowing activity. Even so, it was a subsequent act of whistleblowing that made people aware of the entire scenario. The development of a formal whistleblowing policy has a positive impact on company image and contributes towards building a positive brand image. It is also important that authorities who are responsible for receiving complaints and taking appropriate investigatory actions should be external to the normal reporting channel of the company. In addition to that, the company must guarantee complete confidentiality of the reporting in order to maintain employee safety and ensure healthy relationships within the company. The process for investigation needs to be impartial and fair. Short Reflection: As most people would agree, the act of whistleblowing is deemed to act towards good corporate governance mechanisms. However, the dilemma remains that if a company operates under good levels of corporate governance, then the act of whistleblowing might act positively and will be well-acknowledged. Nonetheless, the need arises to make sure that such attitudes of acceptance are developed within the business. Topic 3: To what extent do customers’ ethical expectations of corporate behaviour differ around the world? Preparation: The rise in levels of globalisation in business operations as well as businesses has brought about a change in needs of effective administration of corporate governance and behaviour of companies in accordance to demands set by the government and public at large. This change is of particular importance in case of China. The same is observed to be true in case companies of both Europe and America and also in Asia, to a large extent (Brammer and Millington, 2008). The seminar concluded that there was indeed some sort of interdependence between cultures and ethical business practices. What might be perceived to be ethical in one country might not be regarded positively in another nation, primarily due to cultural differences. It is necessary to ensure that the management communicates re-introduced values as well as highlights criticality of such values for company success. This also helps the management to put enough emphasis on highlighting relevant ethics and values. The usual trend of compliance towards the generally accepted standards is not sufficient in order to survive and sustain within the present dynamically changing environment. It is important that companies have clear statement of values, which reflect them as a truly global corporation with sustainable growth. Companies that aim to go global and have developed strong system of values and ethics in their business practices should renew and re-evaluate these values periodically. The codes for corporate governance should carry the same theme, but need to be tweaked according to culture of the country. However, this does not imply that any infringement of human rights can become acceptable. The case of environment and human rights need to have a general code on the global context. The seminar discussion: The seminar discussed about the three phases of corporate behaviour. It is believed that presently, the world is in its third phase of development towards corporate behaviour and is establishing global standards for the same. The first phase is marked by dominance of western perceptions of business behaviour on global standards (Godfrey, Merrill and Hansen, 2009). The influence of America was quite large in this context. Nevertheless, codes set by companies in United States were not accepted well in China because they were unable to meet cultural and behavioural difference in the country. Most companies did not accept the codes well and refrained from even translating them into Chinese. The second phase was an attempt towards developing global codes for guiding company behaviour, which was aimed to be directed towards addressing worldwide conditions and situations. The codes were generalized for each industry and were specific between industries like, mining, FMCG and pharmaceuticals. Other attempts in the second phase have been directed towards addressing global specific issues of environment or human rights. Short Reflection: Pakistan might perceive it to be essential to have child labourers for the purpose of equity in distribution of income. They might think that families send children to work for earning additional income, which shall in turn help in improving general standard of living of the family. Contrarily, Western nations like, USA, might consider it unethical to buy products prepared by child labourers. Hence, difference in thought, culture and ethical practices has an impact on company policy of corporate governance (Chen, 2011). On the other hand, some practices like, refraining from use of animals for lab testing, might be universally accepted for good corporate governance. Mary Kay, a global cosmetic company, had experienced a dramatic rise in sales when it stopped using animals in their labs (Halal, 2000). Reflective Writing The seminar presented considerable scepticism associated with social media and its effects on company’s CSR initiatives. The cases presented for and against were reflection of a complete failure on social media CSR attempts of American BP and that of exceptional business performance in case of Maesrk Group (Li and Bernoff, 2008). It was noticed that CSR communication systems are moving towards a strategic approach, where the complex and little researched topic is acting towards building company reputation, acceptance, brand building, legitimacy and an indirect license to operate. The primary goal of CSR on social media was to build trust. The future that beholds with the use of social media for reputation building activity is way more complex in nature. The communication shall witness competition and fight backs on social media along with effort to effectively adapt to needs of users and control communication on the platform. It can become a social phenomenon. The world of social media is dynamic and there is no framework yet to decide over the use and patterns of communication between CSR and social media. The results are yet to be seen (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). There was a time when companies were able to control their communication and press releases for the purpose of brand building. Such controls might be highly lacking in the context of social media. However, the social media platform is still in the developing phase. There are developments in control mechanisms like, the permission feature of Facebook to allow a particular post on your page. Such controls again can have a biased representation when the company might refrain from allowing any wrong communication on their platform at all. The reasons associated with success of the social media platform form the reasons for its challenges. It is critical for the company to incorporate a proper mechanism for exercising the control features. The second seminar was aimed at a discussion of the essential and key components of the whistleblowing policy and has presented three main imperatives, which might compel companies to adopt the whistleblowing policies. The fundamental reasons for initiating and promoting whistleblowing policies include prevention of retaliation towards employees that raise concerns over wrongdoings within the company; prevention of publicizing unethical business practices within the company; and establishment of a workplace that houses more than mere routine work (Galbreath, 2010). On a reflective thought, it is believed that the enactment of a policy for whistleblowing is not an ultimate solution for all ethics related issues; rather, it might just be a first step towards it. It becomes more crucial to ensure that such policies are well-communicated to the employees and such effective communication implies bringing about a deep understanding among the staff; instead of merely notifying them about the changes. This shall call for dedicated training sessions that are aimed at addressing ethical dilemmas and enhancing employee acquaintances (Godfrey, 2005). The employees have to be given concrete examples of business wrongdoings and impact of a potential whistleblowing activity in the area. It is believed that such a policy needs to represent more than a plain notice on company papers and website. The policy and its adoption should reflect commitment of the company towards policy aims. This is necessary in order to prevent retaliation against the employees who carry out the whistleblowing activity (Weckerle, 2013). The discussion of unethical business practices and wrongdoings needs to be conducted internally within the company and to be kept away from any external influence or enactment. Thus, it is important to create an overall environment, which contributes towards developing a surrounding that supports ethical and responsible behaviour within the organization. The third seminar presented the fact that the growing context of interdependence in socio-economic scenario of businesses and multinational organizations are helping businesses to increasingly realise that there is a need to recognise a consensus over development of global grounds for moral and ethical behaviour. Some consider that the consensus needs to be arrived at a worldwide corporate culture, which could imply an integration of business environment wherein companies currently operate. Even so, there are problems associated with developing grounds that is to be referred as a global standard for behaviour of the corporate. The problem associated with the global concept of coding for corporate governance emerges in context of realising the true meaning of these codes in the global context. Companies most often try to meet the minimum standards set by the code for the purpose of audits, rather than to work upon the true significance of such codes. In addition to that, codes within the corporate are nothing but the way of working for the management as opposed to being a definition of desired and moral behaviour on part of these companies. Hence, it was analysed that the codes are a reflection of the formalised approach towards socially responsible behaviour by the corporate (Hohnen and Potts, 2007). It is being increasingly observed that companies in the global scenario are comprehensively trying to shift away from the two phases discussed and create an approach towards meeting expectations of the general masses. In this attempt, they need to be more alert regarding the cultural differences and approaches in different countries within which they operate. Reference List Borges, B., 2009. Marketing 2.0: Bridging the gap between seller and buyer through social media marketing. Tucson: Wheatmark Inc. Brady, A. K., 2003. How to generate sustainable brand value from responsibility. Journal of Brand Management, 10(4/5), pp. 279-289. Brammer, S. and Millington, A., 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, pp. 1325–1343. Chen, C.H., 2011. The major components of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Global Responsibility, 2(1), pp. 85-89. Coombs, W. T. 2012. Crisis communication – planning, managing, and responding. London: Sage. Galbreath, J., 2010. How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), pp. 411-431. Godfrey, P. C., 2005. The relationship between philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), pp. 777-798. Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B. and Hansen, J. M., 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 425-445. Halal, W.E., 2000. Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Strategy and Leadership, 28(2), pp. 10-16. Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. L., 2002. Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), pp. 78-89 Hohnen, P. and Potts, J., 2007. Corporate social responsibility. International Institute for Sustainable Development, pp. 01-115. Li, C. and Bernoff, J. 2008. Groundswell – Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. London: Harvard Business Press. Mergel, I. and Greeves, B., 2012. Social media in the public sector field guide: designing and implementing strategies and policies. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons. Mitchell, M., Turner, J., Corbett, R. C. and Tasner, M., 2012. Measure the Impact of Online Marketing. New York: FT Press. Qualman, E. 2011. Socialnomics – how social media transforms the way we live and do business. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ray, S., 2006. Whistle blowing and organisational ethics. Nursing Ethics, 13 (4), pp. 435-445. Rimoldi, C., 2006. Whistleblowing at work: Ethical and juridical issues, Accademico, pp. 1-120. Roberts, M. and Zahay, D., 2012. Internet Marketing: Integrating online and offline strategies. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B., 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), pp. 225-243. Weckerle, A., 2013. Civility in the digital age: How companies and people can triumph over haters, trolls, bullies and other jerks. Washington, D.C.: Que Publishing. Bibliography Aaker, D. A. and Joachimsthaler, E., 2000. Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Aras, G., Aybars, A. and Kutlu, O., 2010. Managing corporate performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(3), pp. 229-254. Barker, M., Barker, D. I., Bormann, N. and Neher, K., 2012. Social Media Marketing: A strategic approach. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Barnett, M. L., 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 794-816. Baron, D. P., 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, pp. 7-45. Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A. and Hill, R. P., 2005. The impact of perceived corporate responsibility on consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 59, pp. 46-53. Bernea, A., and Rubin, A., 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), pp. 71–86 Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sen, S., 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, pp. 9-24. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S. and Korschun, D., 2008. Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. Sloan Management Review, 49(2), pp. 37-44. Bowen, F., 2007. Corporate social strategy: competing views from two theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, pp. 91-113. Brennan, N. M. and Merkl-Davies, D. M., 2013. Accounting Narratives and Impression management, The Routledge Companion to Communication in Accounting, pp. 109-132. Chand, M., 2006. The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance: Industry type as a boundary condition. The Business Review, 5 (1), pp. 240–246. Cho, S. Y., Lee, C., and Pfeiffer Jr., R. J., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility Performance and Information Asymmetry. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(1), pp. 71-83. Deng, X., Kang, J., and Low, B. S., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), pp. 87-109. Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., and Hausler, N., 2012. Corporate social responsibility: The disclosure–performance gap. Tourism management, 33(6), pp. 1544-1553. Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management – New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27 (1-2), pp. 55-68. Jensen, M. C., 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14 (3), pp. 8–21. Jiraporn, P., and Chintrakarn, P., 2013. How do powerful CEOs view corporate social responsibility (CSR)? An empirical note. Economic Letters, 119(3), pp. 344-347. Jo, H., and Harjoto, M. A., 2011. Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103 (3), pp. 351-383. Kong, D., 2012. Does corporate social responsibility matter in the food industry? Evidence from a nature experiment in China. Food policy, 37(3), pp. 323-334. Mahoney, L. S., Thome, L., Cecil, L., and LaGore, W. 2013. A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives in Accounting, 24(4-5), pp. 350-359. Merkl-Davies, D. M. and Brennan, N. M., 2011. A Conceptual Framework of Impression Management: New insights from psychology, sociology, and critical perspectives. Accounting and Business Research, 41 (5), pp. 415-437. Moir, L., 2001. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance, 1(2), pp. 16-22. Taysir, E. A., and Pazarcik, Y. 2013. Business Ethics, Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Does the Strategic Management Field Really Care about these Concepts? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99(6), pp. 294-303. Woods, M., 2003. The global reporting initiative. The CPA Journal, 73 (6), pp. 60–65. Read More