The Field of Event Management in Business - Essay Example

 The field of event management has increased in size and impact globally to become a major business with numerous dedicated facilities. The field encompasses meetings, conventions, festivals, expositions, sports, the hospitality sector including tourism and variation, and other special occasions. It includes a range of issues including business ethics, employee volunteering programs, overall role in the society and meeting the interest of the shareholders, customers and employees. There has been a shift from volunteer-organized leisure activity to a major business activity using complex digital technology requiring high skilled technicians and engineers. Professionalism has come into every field and event management is no exception. Along with glamour and excitement, it requires hard work and dynamism. Big business houses use this as brand building strategy. What is the cause of this shift in focus? Whatever the purpose, the main business criteria applicable to any business cannot be ignored. Profits remain to be the idea behind any business but the social responsibilities cannot be shirked. Any business demands that we focus our abilities towards our goals. Has social responsibility become the reason to enhance profits? Alternatively, the bottom line for any business is profits and is that sufficient for its success? The area of social responsibility extends not to the society in general but it is now focused on the workers, the investors, customers, and suppliers. Corporate social responsibility or CSR is an industry in itself. Over the past decade, this has grown exponentially. Big businesses have full time staff, newsletters, websites, professional associations, and an army of consultants to assist them in organizing events. The employee volunteering has now emerged as the CSR. Companies like Accenture and Whitbread term this as Corporate Citizenship (Lucie Carrington) where they take up working with the sick children and the local schools. Most of the staff gets involved in some voluntary service or donation. While this concept has been in business for so long, the terms CSR and Corporate Citizenship have been coined recently. There is no consensus, no standards and there are different expectations of what CSR is designed to do. Most annual reports now include not just the financial statements but also the company’s social commitments. There is an increasing attention on a company’s commitment to ethical and socially responsible behaviour. Grants, ratings, and rewards are also being awarded for good corporate citizenship. Debates are held and surveys conducted to determine whether CSR improves an organization’s image or profits. Does a company do well by doing good? Financial Times recently reported that ‘not only do people in different countries have a different perception of what constitutes good corporate responsibility, but that their perception is dynamic and changes according to agendas’ (Jeanette Slepian). CSR is not incorporated into an organizational strategy and hence can be dispensed off whenever the going gets tough. This makes the employees feel that they work for an insincere and uncaring company. There are also arguments that the stakeholders’ money is being used to discharge the CSR. The stakeholders are capable of using their discretion for donations as they wish. It is philanthropy at other people’s expense. A survey of 1500 delegates revealed that less than twenty percent found profitability was the most important measure of corporate success (The Economist) and less than 5 percent felt that CSR was the single most important criterion of success. If the managers support good causes out of their own salaries and incentives it would be admirable but working at others’ expense is no philanthropy. Advocates of CSR argue that corporate virtue is good for profits. Globally, the government encourages such activity by providing incentives and tax rebates. Managing CSR is a part of business and requires no special skills; it is merely managing one of the aspects of the business. Those against CSR argue that companies like General Electric and Microsoft have never involved in CSR but they are market leaders today. On the other hand, companies like IBM and Motorola who do involve themselves in CSR are equally successful companies. Coca Cola achieved its place partially because of its profile in social responsibility. Companies like Johnson & Johnson survived crises because they took a swift and principled approach. Then again, these policies and principles hold good for big companies and not for those whom survival itself is a question. When times are hard, one cannot afford to shift focus from the core business or profits because the question of sustainability comes. Smaller companies find it difficult to give CSR importance. It is the global players and the multinational corporations who use CSR to build a brand image that concentrate on such activities. Hence, while businesses have to operate in a social structure, the decision to set CSR as one of the goals of business depends largely on the size and nature of the company. Besides, companies need to be cautious on the type of responsibility they intend to discharge because research has shown that public is likely to punish companies who perform poorly after responsibility has been taken. This is especially on in the case of operational responsibilities like environmental protection or fair treatment of employees. Freidman (1989) argues that it is not the business of businesses to be socially responsible. He emphasizes that there is one social responsibility in business to engage in activities to increase profits. A renowned hotel in South Pacific (cited in The Wider Environment) employs over 250 people and the owner takes personal interest in their welfare. Since it is a closely held property, she can afford to give them more wages than the prevailing rates and generously help not only their families but also contribute to the national fund raising efforts. This no doubt reinforces relations with the employees but had there been stakeholders they would have to play within the parameters laid down. What cannot be ignored here is the fact that hospitality industry, which includes tourism and hotels, influences the environment and is influenced by the environment. These influences may be both positive and negative. Environmental pollution, child labor, and sex abuse is rampant in this industry, which is a responsibility of the industry or the players in this field. Hospitality organizations exist in a social, political, and economic environment and they cannot afford to ignore this. Tony Allen of Hospitality Action says that the staff feels pride in working for companies that make them feel socially responsible. The owner of 16-roomed hotel feels that if you treat your customers, suppliers and staff properly they stand by you through difficult times. However, profits remain the prime concern. If CSR does not make a difference to the business, why one should get into it at all, questions Jerry Marston of Whitbread. While big businesses have the resources, it may be too much paper work for the small businesses, warns Bob Cotton of the British Hospitality Association (Jan Jackson). The aviation industry too has large-scale environment and social aspects to consider. British Airways takes pride in the way they do business. They contribute 1 pound per worldwide booking towards conservation projects and they want the staff to get more involved in such projects. They are aware of the oppurtunities that fair trade practices can to everyone involved or affected. The fast food industry tries to make its presence felt in the sector of social responsibility with McDonalds (2002) describing how the company is creating a positive impact upon the community, the environment, and the global market. Their report has large gaps and is aimed at projecting its brand image rather than any actual work done. The Weizhi group (cited in Strategic Direction) is a living example that principles and profit can abide side by side. They stuck to their principles of honesty, sincerity, diligence, and hard work and managed to get the desired returns by sheer dedication. The market today is customer oriented and the demands of the society are ever increasing. People look for products and services that satisfy their moral and ethical values. This calls for enhanced performance to fulfill their responsibility as corporate citizens. In recent years, the role of the business in the society has changed but very often CSR is used as a political game to derive benefits. Can an organization really make money by being nice, is a question, which haunts those who are in it and equally those who are not in it. In the event management industry the prime concerns are maintaining schedules, delivering service at short notice and wide scale communication. This calls for very effective man management. Recruitment and retention play a major role here and these days people are looking not just for high pay scale but the image of the company. At the same time, it must be accepted that event management companies play a key role in not just meeting the products and service needs of the market, but to deliver these in a socially progressive manner. CSR is not an end in itself but definitely a key-driver of long-term business success. Bibliography: Baker M, Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility, < http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/against.html> (04 December 2005). Carrington L, Call to Arms, (No page no or year available). Friedman, The Wider Environment, p 250 Jackson J, British Airways and Corporate Responsibility Slepian J, Corporate Social Responsibility, (04 December 2005) Social Policy, Give and Take, p 26 Strategic Direction, McDonalds Jumps on CSR bandwagon, Vol. 18, Issue 9, p 1 Strategic Direction, Vol 18, Issue 9, p 1 2002 The Economist, Two-faced Capitalism, Corporate Social Responsibility, (04 December 2005). The Wider Environment, p 251 Read More