User:Oliverk25/sandbox

Human Resources

CSR is known for impacting employee turnover. Several executives suggest that employees are their most valuable asset and that the ability to retain them leads to organization success. Socially responsible activities promote fairness, which in turn generate lower employee turnover. On the other hand, if an irresponsible behavior is demonstrated by a firm, employees may view this behavior as negative. Proponents argue that treating employees well with competitive pay and good benefits is seen as a socially responsible behavior and therefore reduces employee turnover. Executives have a strong desire for building a positive work context that benefits CSR and the company as a whole. This interest is driven particularly by the realization that a positive work environment can result in desirable outcomes such as more favorable job attitudes and increased work performance.

The IBM Institute for Business Value conducted a survey of 250 business leaders worldwide in 2008. The survey found out that businesses have assimilated a much more strategic view, and that 68% companies reported are utilizing CSR as an opportunity and part of a sustainable growth strategy. The authors noted that while developing and implementing a CSR strategy represents a unique opportunity to benefit the company. However, only 31% of businesses surveyed engaged their employees on the company’s CSR objectives and initiatives. The survey’s authors also stated that employee engagement on CSR initiatives can be a powerful recruitment and retention tool. As a result, employees tend to discard employers with a bad reputation.

Brand Differentiation

Companies that operate strong CSR activities tend to drive customer’s attention to buy products or services regardless of the price. As a result, this increases competition among firms since customers are aware of the company’s CSR practices. These initiatives serve as a potential differentiator because they not only add value to the company, but also to the products or services. Furthermore, firms under intense competition are able to leverage CSR to increase the impact of their distribution on the firm’s performance. For instance, lowering the carbon footprint of a firm’s distribution network or engaging in fair trade are potential differentiators to lower costs and increase profits. In this scenario, customers can observe the company’s commitment to CSR while increasing company sales.

Whole Foods’ marketing and promotion of organic foods have had a positive effect on the supermarket industry. Proponents assert that Whole Foods has been able to work with its suppliers to improve animal treatment and quality of meat offered in their stores. They also promote local agricultures in over 2,400 independent farms to maintain their line of sustainable organic produce. As a result, Whole Foods’ high prices do not turn customers away from shopping. In fact, they are pleased buying organic products that come from sustainable practices.

According to a Harvard Business Review article, there are three theaters of practice in which CSR can be divided. Theater one focuses on philanthropy, which includes donations of money or equipment to non-profit organizations, engagement with communities’ initiatives and employee volunteering. This is characterized as the “soul” of a company, expressing the social and environmental priorities of the founders. The authors assert that companies engage in CSR because they are an integral part of the society. For instance, the Coca-Cola Company contributes with $88.1 million annually to a variety of environmental educational and humanitarian organization. Another example is PNC Financial Services' “Grow Up Great” childhood education program. This program provides critical school readiness resources to underserved communities where PNC operates.

On the other hand, theater two focuses on improving operational effectiveness in the workplace. The researchers assert that programs in this theater strive to deliver social or environmental benefits to support a company’s operation across the value chain by improving efficiency. Some of the examples mentioned include sustainability initiatives to reduce resource use, waste, and emission that could potentially reduce costs. It also calls for investing in employee work conditions such as health care and education which may enhance productivity and retention. Unlike philanthropic giving, which is evaluated by its social and environmental return, initiatives in the second theater are predicted to improve the corporate bottom line with social value. Bimbo, the largest bakery in Mexico, is an excellent example of this theater. The company strives to meet social welfare needs. It offers free educational service to help employees complete high school. Bimbo also provides supplementary medical care and financial assistance to close gaps in the government health coverage.

Moreover, the third theater program aims to transform the business model. Basically, companies create new forms of business to address social or environmental challenges that will lead to financial returns in the long run. One example can be seen in Unilever’s Project Shakti in India. The authors describe that the company hires women in villages and provides them with micro-finance loans to sell soaps, detergents, and other products door-to-door. This research indicates that more than 65,000 women entrepreneurs are doubling their incomes while increasing rural access and hygiene in Indian villages. Another example is IKEA's People and Planet initiative to be 100% sustainable by 2020. As a consequence, the company wants to introduce a new model to collect and recycle old furniture.

Ethical Ideologies

CEOs’ political ideologies are evident manifestations of their different personal views. Each CEO may exercise different powers according to their organizational outcomes. In fact, their political ideologies are expected to influence their preferences for the CSR outcomes. Proponents argue that politically liberal CEOs will envision the practice of CSR as beneficial and desirable to increase a firm’s reputation. They tend to focus more on how the firm can meet the needs of the society. As a consequence, they will advance with the practice of CSR while adding value to the firm. On the other hand, property rights may be more relevant to conservative CEOs. Since conservatives tend to value free markets, individualism and call for a respect of authority, they will not likely envision this practice as often as those identifying as liberals might.[85]

The financials of the company and the practice of CSR also have a positive relationship. Moreover, the performance of a company tends to influence conservatives more likely than liberals. While not seeing it from the financial performance point of view, liberals tend to hold a view that CSR adds to the business triple bottom line. For instance, when the company is performing well, they will most likely promote CSR. If the company is not performing as expected, they will rather tend to emphasize this practice because they will potentially envision it as a way to add value to the business. In contrast, politically conservative CEOs will tend to support the practice of CSR if they hold a view that it will provide a good return to the financials of the company. In other words, this type of executives tend to not see the outcome of CSR as a value to the company if it does not provide anything in exchange.[85]