A Critical Analysis of Company Q’s Social Responsibility Essay Example for Free

A Critical Analysis of lodge Qs Social Responsibility EssayAbstractThis essay is a critical summary of the behaviors that union Q has demonstrated with regard to social responsibility. In essence, Company Qs behaviors, art object reasonable reactions to maintain pecuniary viability and avoid contribution to employee malfeasance, actually demonstrate a profound fear that results in a negative public image that will end up costing it more than in the long term. I will bear solutions that will provide a cost savings while keeping Company Q from making further embarrassing errors. A Critical Analysis of Company Qs Social ResponsibilityUnfortunately, Company Q has not made wise decisions as it relates to social responsibility. on that point be reports that the company 1) chose to close much-needed grocery stores in economically depressed (read minority-occupied) parts of town, 2.) chose to start go health-conscious intellectual nourishment items only after it could locate the in high spiritsest-margin products it could find and 3) ashamedly refused to provide day-old feed to the local anaesthetic food coast under the auspices that it was have-to doe with that its employees would steal the food instead of donating it. The goal of this analysis is not only to highlight this absurd behavior and reasoning but also to offer solutions that are contributing(prenominal) to meeting social-responsibility concerns and maintaining financial viability. With any hope, Company Q will heed the counsel and institute flying changes.Scenario 1The news recently reported the shuttering of two of Company Qs grocery stores in locality A and Neighborhood B. Although the company gave no public statement about the nature of these closings, public financial disclosures indicate the rationale The stores were not entanglementable. Of course, in a free-market economy, companies puddle the option to close unprofitable stores. only in addition to being a free market, w e are also an economy that operates on high social principlesor, at the very least, weshould be. Company Q apparently missed this memorandum when it was sent 30 historic period ago. With these stores removed from both neighborhoods, where are the residents of those neighborhoods supposed to keep going? And with the removal of the stores, what impetus do the few otherwise grocers have to keep prices reasonable for people of that socio-economic level?Scenario 1ResolutionI recognize that a practical rebuttal to any of the aforementioned questions is, If the residents are not shopping in that respect and putting specie into the store, why would we be expected to stay open? I would offer that such a rebuttal is wrongheaded. Perhaps a better question may be, What are we doing to cause residents to shop elsewhere or to not spend more money with us? Does Company Q offer the food choices these residents want? Is the layout of your stores conducive to these residents? Are the prices t oo high? Do the staff you employ in these stores look like the residents who shop there? If the answer is no to any of these questions, we will have unlocked one of many possible reasons why the store is unprofitable. It is then Company Qs responsibility to address these issues instead of packing up shop and moving to the more affluent areas of town, where they are not concerned that a jar of pickles may cost $40.Scenario 2With a weight epidemic ravaging the country, Company Q made its decision to offer health-conscious food fare only after it could find the foods that provided the highest margin of profit for it. That is probably why there is a dearth of health-food options in its store, and probably why the prices are nearly twice those of its competitors. This message translates to the community as If Company X stinkpot profit obscenely from offering health-food options to its consumers, it will then be concerned with offering healthy options. Otherwise, let the American flesh iness epidemic rage on unshacklednot our problemScenario 2ResolutionThe above message is a clear problem, and it does not have to be. It is possible for Company Q to offer plenty of health-food options while still making a profit, though the profit may not be as obscene as the one it is currently making. Company Q can engage in more impactful negotiations with its suppliers or can shop the market for health-food competitors who wouldbe willing to come out its sizable consumer base with its food. In our previous reference to store closings, Company Q could also offer more health-food options in more of its stores as opposed to select ones. Or Company Q could offer the same food products but initially make less of a profit on it by offering discounts on it initially as a sort of enticement to nodes to become raise and promote the food to their network of friends and family. This possibility could theoretically create increased demand for the healthy food and allow more positivene ss for the company in the long run. Company profitability and meeting social-responsibility obligations as it relates to our countrys obesity epidemic need not be at variance.Scenario 3A local food bankone that serves the indigentrequested the donation of day-old food from Company Q, but Company Q responded that it was concerned that it would lose revenue because it was concerned that its employees would purloin the food instead of donating it.Scenario 3ResolutionThis response is affront to its own employees and to the food bank. If Company Q is concerned that its employees are miscreants, the companys bigger concern should be the integrity of its employee-verification process. There are many solutions available have the food-bank employees collect the food themselves, designate a specific employee to handle food donations, make a tax-deductible donation in the amount of the destroyed food instead. Almost any response is better than what Company Q provided.ConclusionThere is no que stion that both company has a right to pursue profits, and I recognize that Company Q is ultimately attempting to do solely that. However, it is imperative that Company Q realize that it has a responsibility to contribute to society something other than products and services. Consumers are interested in doing business with forward-thinking companies who recognize their responsibility in propelling the soul of our society forward. With the counsel provided, Company Q can bring itself in line with many other companies in being truly customer centric.