Dairy Farmers Response Strategy - Case Study Example

Dairy Farmers’ Response Strategy Name Institution Dairy Farmers’ Response Strategy Today more than any other time, corporations have more stakeholder interests to take care of. The process must start by identifying the interests of these parties through wider dialogue. The rationale is that stakeholders usually do not have a shared set of demands from organizations hence their interests must be handled differently. In this case for example the permeate debate affects the various stakeholders differently. The farmers are the suppliers of milk and their interest would involve a system that assures them of the market for their products. Permeate free milk would be a welcome move for them since the milk companies would have to buy more from them, The shareholders of the companies would have a different view since the value for their income would reduce with the extra acquisition of milk. The consumer groups would be interested in the health and quality standards of the products after the new system of processing has been adopted. A wider dialogue enables the parties concerned to harmonize differences such that in the final end the decision taken satisfies all the parties concerned. Dairy farmers took to the media to promote the importance of the strategy to avail permeate free milk to the market. The limitation of their public relations initiatives can, however, be traced to targeting only the consumers leaving the other stakeholder groups partially covered. This approach can be best explain the initial resistance that the company experienced in the process of the shift. There was also application of two way asymmetric public relations by the industry players to try and present a different view. In this regard they called sought formal persuasion as the way to go. The aim is to change the perception and the image of the company and the product in the short run. The system was intended to ensure that the stocks that were in the shelves could sell at least at the same rate as previously. Two way asymmetric entails acceptance of feedback from the publics. It seeks to know the position of various parties regarding the situation of the organization in a certain matter of concern. The campaign was applied by the organization to try and reduce the precaution that had been surpassed among consumers over permeate free milk. What apparently was discovered is that consumers were generally not aware what permeate was and that milk processing companies added it to the processed milk. The campaigns targeted at explaining that permeate was actually a by-product of milk processing and its inclusion or exclusion only varies the nutrient concentration within a unit volume of milk. Two way symmetric public relations is based on mutual of the two parties. It involves building a consensus by way of give and take. The process involves each party to make compromises to its list of demands. However, the nature of the stakeholders in the industry could not allow for consensus building. In this regard the one way persuasion technique was sought with the aim of diverting the consumer’s perception of permeate as a milk additive and the safety of permeate free milk. Recommendations and discussion The organization draws its existence from the society and by extension becomes part of that society. It relates with the other members of the society such that it affects them and gets affected by the as well. The interaction is two way – the organization benefits by getting supplies from the public and sells its final product to them. The public on the other hand benefit from the market for their products and get access to vital commodities required for the human survival. The organizations do not exist on their own motion. This means they are owned by people and hence their interests must also rank for attention. The same case applies for the employees of the company and the government as it plays the vital role of creating a conducive environment for business. Based on this argument it is imperative that the organization to establish and maintain good relations with all these parties. When these relations suffer any harm as it was the case for Dairy Farmers every effort should be made within the legal means to rectify the situation. Public Relations as an area of study has provided many theories and methodologies that can help troubled organizations negotiate their hurdles. Such can be applied to the case herein. One of those is unquestionably the co-orientation model. McLeod developed the co-orientation model that provides a framework for tracing the inter-relationships that subsists between stakeholders in a communication process (McLeod & Chaffee, 1973). According to the model, for the process of communication to be effective these models must be properly oriented ahead of time. The model further defines the various participants that should be included in the model and their respective interests and demand patterns. In the case of Dairy Farmers and permeate milk the interests of farmers, consumers, competitors, government, regulatory bodies in the food industry, all differ. However, the consumer groups could be ranked highest in this case owing to the extent of damage the debate caused to the sale levels of virtually all industry players. What consumers want is an assurance of their safety and health after consumption of the processed milk. The debate over permeate is technical in nature and difficult for non-professionals to comprehend. But now that the company brought it on, it has to take the initiative to ensure that it settles to a meaningful and harmless conclusion. Dairy Farmers need to engage the consumers into letting them believe what permeate is, scientifically and assure them that it is a safe substance from within natural milk with no complications out of its consumption. In other words, though Dairy Farmers is now marketing a free permeate milk must not brand the permeated milk as a bad product since they have sold it all this time. Dairy Farmers’ next assignment would be to explain the decision for shifting to the permeate free milk. It is at this point that they have to involve the public to come to terms with its assertion that permeate free milk is better that the permeated. It would be stringent also for it to involve the competitors who offer permeated milk so as they can agree on the rules of advertising for the two types of products. It would do harm if the two groups of producers publicize on another’s products negatively since consumers may opt to quit their consumption of processed milk to save themselves the controversy of which type of milk is safe. A compromise arrangement would, for example. Be made to specify that competition would be based on price wars alone and all players to eliminate the permeate issue from their promotion initiatives. This assertion finds a lot of foundation on the model of co-orientation as it advocates for wider dialogue between all parties with diverse interests. The company also ought to seek formal channel of communication. Given the magnitude of the matter at hand a mere casual communication may not bear significant results. It would be prudent to source the involvement of government agencies and regulatory bodies in the processed food sector to clarify on the issue (Larissa, James & David, 2000). Giving their position would go a long way to quelling the tension and confusion among the consumers. Another stringent move would be to lobby the support of the leading consumer organizations. Such groups hold sway in the manner in which the market responds to a change in the market. The reputation of these groups put them at a position of trust by the consumers. The argument is that the consumers perceive them as responding from a neutral position as opposed to the market players themselves (Michael & Timothy, 1996). The ethical foundation of the tactic recommended The concept of ethics in business has attained unprecedented attention in the last few decades from different groups- consumers, government agencies and even corporations. Unfortunately, even the academicians have failed to agree on the best definition of this new phenomenon (Argandona & Hivivik, 2009). In general terms however, business ethics and particularly corporate social responsibility can be taken to mean a code of conduct by an organization to operate in a manner that they cause no harm to stakeholders and where that happens erroneously the company takes responsibility to rectify the same on its own motion (Dahlsrud, 2008). This report investigates the reasons that justify the cause for corporations to act in a socially responsible way. The specific reference will be the social benefits accruing from being ethical, the profit gains attaching and finally the moral duty of acting responsibly. A case for critics of this phenomenon will be devised and a refutation for the same devised to exemplify why it holds no water. Finally a conclusion will be formulated based on the discussion developed. Duty theory evaluates the specific care we owe to ourselves and to others in our actions. The deontological theory evaluates the various considerations that should be put into play before we venture into our desired courses of action. It holds that the actions of a human being owe some duty of care to God, oneself and others members of the society. Unlike the assertion by the consequentialists who hold that the end justify the means, the deontological moral theory maximizing the good of oneself should not be at the expense of the welfare of others. In the process of acting a person or an organization must always be sensitive to the impact of the action on other parties. It is on this basis that the rationale for corporate social responsibility is based. In this sense businesses should not make profits at all costs (Vogel, 2005). The strongest case that has been formulated to support social responsibility by organizations is the social aspect. The argument that follows here is that businesses exist in the context of the society which affect and get affected by its actions. This society consequently requires the business to behave in a certain manner that is perceived by its members as morally acceptable (Carrol, 1979). These demands translate to obligations because they are perceived as normal duty in the eyes of the right thinking members of that society. The entity, therefore, has no option but to act as a normal member of the society failure to which would lead to alienation of some kind. Though there will generally be no law stating expressly what the right conduct is, the societal norms would be viewed as exacting enough pressure to induce an entity to acting responsibly. On the same proposition, when a company subscribes to the beliefs and norms of the society, it finds it easier to gel well with it; and can as well better identify itself with the contextual community (Argandona, 1998). The second argument holds that being socially responsible is a good for business. There exists a causal effect relationship between profits and being socially responsible. Findings from past empirical studies have backed this position, stating that the correlation between being socially responsible and recording increased revenues is a positive one. The level of inter-relationship between the two, however, would be seen to differ regionally and sector-wise. Some geographical regions and industries subject to customer perceptions subsisting could be seen to be more responsive, than others (Vogel, 2005). The underlying position, however, is that in all cases is that socially responsible activities boosted periodic profits. An explanation for this could probably be the fact that a socially responsible entity finds it easy to relate with all stakeholders, form suppliers, shareholders, customers, employees and even government. Moreover, the good public image so created enables the company to attract the competent employees which is again a complement for good performance (Devinney, 2009). This creates a healthy environment for business and hence growth in earnings. Managers of the modern times ought to borrow a leaf and strive to adopt ethical corporate culture for competitive advantage among other accruing benefits. Finally, businesses should comply with ethical requirements since it is incumbent upon each player in a social setting to be accountable for acts of transgressions committed. The justification to behave in a certain way and not the other should be rated according to the effect of the community as a whole and not the subject alone. In this regard responsibility is viewed as attribution and consequently implies that concise of one party’s behavior on the welfare of the wider society (Eshleman, 2004). A business will be appraised or reprimanded by members of the society based on the decisions it takes and the effect they yield to the general welfare. An act of negligence will be treated with contempt and will destroy the image of the company (Scanlon, 1998). An entity will therefore be obliged to present itself as a moral agent in expectation to be acceptable and be hailed by the larger society. There is a predetermined code of standards expected of companies and non-compliance will lead to ridicule from the people who should otherwise be customers of its brands (Jonas, 1984). In light of this fact, entities ought to be sensitive to the feelings of the majority in taking corporate decisions. Critics of corporate social responsibility argue that companies have no duty to it. The scarce resources of companies should go into profitable projects to maximize profits. Indeed, caring for the welfare of the society is the proper province of the state and managers should adhere to their core duty of maximizing shareholders wealth. If they commit resources to social duties, then they would have stolen from their principals. For instance, a company needs not to worry how it treats its suppliers since it is possible to shift from one to the other so long as it is the right move for business. Taking responsibility for acts such as environmental conservation or quality of products is taking up the role of the government (Mackey, 2005). However, in the modern time and age these arguments cannot hold water. It is the society through its members that give the company business. Taking concern for their feelings will strengthen the relationship which is prudent for future business engagements. The environment supports both the company and its customers. Being mindful to its conservation will ensure peaceful coexistence of all parties. In the grand scheme of things, companies have to be considerate of long-term effects of their actions, and being socially responsible is key to that. In conclusion it is safe to state that in light of the issues o highlighted, there is a strong case for companies to be socially responsible. As the debate continues, as to what is ethical and what is not, entities can capitalize on facts already gathered to gain business mileage. For instance, managers should target to be socially responsible to increase sales volume out of the acceptance gained by presenting a good public image. Acting in the morally prescribed manner will prevent awkward situations companies find themselves in, with the society. Being accountable for every action is the way to go, despite the critique of the concept of corporate social responsibility. References Argandona, A. & Hoivik, H.W. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: One size does not fit all. Collecting evidence from Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 221-234. Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business ethics, 17, 1093-1102. Broom, G. M. (2009). Cut lip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Carrol, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review,4 497-505. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined; An analysis of 37 definition. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental management, 15. 1-4. Devinney,T.M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 44-56. Eshleman, A. (2004). Moral responsibility, in Zatal, E.N. (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved on September 19 from: www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility. Grunig, J.E. (2000). Two-Way Symmetrical Public Relations: Past, Present, Future, in The Handbook of Public Relations, ed. Robert L. Heath Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Larissa A. G., James E. G. & David M. D. (2000). Excellence in Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mackey, J. (2005). Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business. Whole Foods. Maggie M. K. (2004). Integrating Responsibility Communications at Merck. Strategic Communication Management , 8. McLeod, J.M. & S.H. Chaffee (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist 16(4)469-499. Michael D. M. & Timothy R. L. (1996). “Persuasion,” in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, ed. Michael B. Salwen and Don W. Stacks, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vogel, D.J. (2005). The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington DC., Brookings Institution press. Scanlon, T.M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University press. Scott M. C., Allen H. C. & Glen M. B. (2000). Effective Public Relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. White, J. & D.M. Dozier (1992). “Public relations and management decision making,” in Grunig, J.E. (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum and Associates. Read More