Approaches to Social Responsibility.

In the wake of increasing globalization, we have become increasingly conscious not only of what we buy, but also how the goods and services we buy have been produced. (Enevoldson, 2013). Consequently, countless American business are doing everything within their power to once again built trust and credibility with the general public to earn more profit. One of these ways is through emphasizing their social responsibilities (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 43-46). Essentially, social responsibility refers to "the attempt of a business to balance its commitments to groups and individuals in its environment, including customers, other businesses, employees, investors, and local communities (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 46). There are various general approaches to social responsibilities and can be devided into four basic stances: Obstructionist, Defensive, Accommodative, and Proactive (Amanda, 2008).  

Obstructionist stance

What is the meaning of obstructionist stance? Obstructionist stance is to obstruct get in the way of, or stop something. An organization which holds an obstructionist stance “tries to block and stop what is going on” and avoid corporate social responsibility (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). When an obstructive company cross the ethical or legal line that separates acceptable from unacceptable practices, their typical response is to deny or avoid accepting responsibility for their actions by blocking any attempts to point out the company's lack of social responsibility to defend its economic priorities. An obstructive company does not make social responsibility an effort, instead making profits the most important aspect of its business. Some people view obstructive businesses as immoral since they may exploit their employees, pollute natural lands or deceive customers (Kanobi, 2010).

Examples of the obstructionist approach in the United States was the handling of the Homestead Strike of 1892. Management placed an emphasis on opposing any business activity that threatened profits. 3000 workers from Andrew Carnegie's Homestead Steel Mill went on strike for better wages and working conditions. Instead of trying to come to a mutually beneficial agreement, management choose to hire a private army to quell the strike. The following confrontation led to the deaths of nine workers and three detectives. These types of incidents were not uncommon and were the result of the obstructionist view commonly taken by management during the late 1800's. Historian Joseph Frazier Wall said, "Frick was the norm, not Carnegie, in management's relationship with labor at that time". (PBS, The Homestead Strike, 1999).

Defensive stance

In most cases, companies that take a defensive stance towards social responsibility are not particularly responsible (Kanobi, 1999). Companies hold the concept of "argues that nothing has been done wrong by them despite possible bad outcomes", and doing only what is required of them by law and nothing more (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). These companies may consider themselves neutral, and they make profits a more important motive than performing actions in a socially responsible way. They make a point of following the law to ensure that others cannot take legal action against them. A company may create more waste than necessary, but it will remove of the waste in a legal method rather than dumping it illegally (Kanobi,2010).

For examples, there are companies like Camel, R. J. Reynolds, and Phillip Morris that are all tobacco companies that take a defensive stance to social responsibility. They do things such as placing warnings on the packs. These companies wouldn’t put the warnings on the packages if it weren’t for the law. In countries where that is not the law, they go above and beyond to sell their products, even if that means discarding their warnings. They will not purposely advertise the risks involved with the products in fear consumers will not buy them (littlechica2009, 2011).

Accommodative stance

            

       What is the meaning of accommodating stance? Accommodating stance means "approach to social responsibility by which a company exceeds legal minimums in its commitments to groups and individuals in its social environment". A business that employs an accommodative stance to social responsibility "provides information and facts and doesn't try to hide things" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Social responsibility is a term referring to the accountability businesses have to balance out their commitments to people, including customers, other businesses, investors and employees. Accommodative social responsibility is a strategy used when a company chooses to accept responsibility for certain problems and takes the initiative to solve them. (VanBaren, 2010).

An accommodating stance signifies that a company believes social responsibility is important -- and perhaps as important as making a profit. These companies satisfy all legal requirements and attempt to meet ethical standards, but will also go beyond these obligations in selected cases (Kanobi, 2010). Such firms voluntarily agree to participate in social programs, but solicitors have to convince the organisation that the programs are worthy of it support, or else the organisations do not proactively seek such avenues for contributing (Griffin, 2012). Besides, an accommodating company does not attempt to hide its actions and remains open about why it takes specific actions. For example, it may decrease its creation of waste, source products that are not tested on animals and pay its employees a fair wage. The company would keep its records open to the public. Though these companies are often socially responsible, they may change their policies in response to criticism (Kanobi, 2010).

            

          Walmart, Disney, and Google are great examples of companies going above and beyond. The three companies have been known to give great benefits to their employees, and even match contributions made by their employees to selected charitable causes (littlechica2009, 2011). VodaPhone, an African telecommunications company, for example, sponsors a youth cricket league in Pretoria, South Africa also shows accommodative stance in this situation.

Proactive stance

           

          The highest degree of social responsibility that a firm can exhibit is the proactive stance. (Griffin, 2012). A proactive stance, as opposed to a reactive one, involves acting in advance of a future situation rather than simply responding to a situation that has already happened. Ultimately, a proactive organization "actively provide[s] and tr[ies] to figure out how to help instead of being reactive" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Logically, customers are much more trusting of such companies. Firms that adopt this approach take to heart the arguments in favour of social responsibility. They view themselves as citizens in a society and proactively seek opportunities to contribute. (Griffin, 2012). Proactive behaviour aims at identification and exploitation of opportunities and in taking pre-emptory action against potential problems and threats, whereas reactive behaviour focuses on fighting a fire or solving a problem after it occurs. Companies can be either proactive or reactive in responding to events that impact them. Companies that take a proactive stance plan in advance and initiate action to deal with events, instead of merely responding to events. Besides, proactivity is about initiating change within the organization. In the area of customer service, for instance, a company may take proactive action to recall a product if it finds that there is a problem with it, rather than waiting for consumers to complain and then reacting to the issue (Pondent, 2010).

            

               An excellent example of  proactive stance is the Ronald McDonald House program undertaken by McDonald’s. These houses, located close to major medical centres, can be used by families for minimal cost while their sick children are receiving medical treatment nearby. This program has been widely applauded (Griffin, 2012). Another example for proactive stance is The Toro Company, Exmark Manufacturing and Dixon Industries Inc. They collectively recalled 62,000 faulty commercial riding mowers. These companies worked directly with their dealers, distributors and customers during the recall campaign to proactively fix or replace the affected units already on the market (Bass, 2013). Nike is another example of a company that took a proactive stance, responding to criticisms about the labour conditions in the company´s supply chain. Nike has taken a proactive stance to labour issues as part of the company's corporate social responsibility goals. The company has decided to take the offensive in terms of responding to criticism about labour conditions in the company's supply chain, according to a Nike corporate responsibility report. Nike sees this as a better option, recognizing that "waiting means we risk facing a forced requirement to shift on someone else's timeline." Kingfisher, a company that owns the British chain B&Q, has successfully implemented a proactive stance on waste reduction, chemicals and green issues in 2007. The company had goals for waste reduction and use of certified timber, sourcing the majority of its timber from sources that the Forest Stewardship Council has certified. Kingfisher's policies on chemicals in 2007 required its operating companies to have an action plan available by 2008 to identify products containing certain chemicals and to work with vendors on plans to remove or substitute them (Pondent, 2010).

Reference List:

Amanda R. Dollak. (2008). How Should American Businesses Approach Social Responsibility?. Available: <http://voices.yahoo.com/how-american-businesses-approach-social-responsibility-2131442.html?cat=3> Last accessed 29 April 2013.

Breann Kanobi. (1999). What Are the Four Basic Approaches to Social Responsibility? Read more: What Are the Four Basic Approaches to Social Responsibility? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8254493_four-basic-approaches-. Available: <http://www.ehow.com/info_8254493_four-basic-approaches-social-responsibility.html.> Last accessed 29 April 2013.

Brian Bass. (2013). Examples of Organizations That Use Proactive Stances. Available: <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-organizations-use-proactive-stances-19368.html>. Last accessed 30 April 2013.

Corr S. Pondent. (1999). Companies That Used Proactive Stance. Available: <http://www.ehow.com/list_7300790_companies-used-proactive-stance.html> . Last accessed 30 April 2013.

Enevoldson. N. (2013). What Is Social Responsibility? Available at: <http://www.imasocialentrepreneur.com/social-responsibility/> Last accessed 29 April 2013.

Jennifer VanBaren. (2010). Accommodative Social Responsibility. Available: <http://www.ehow.com/info_8017302_accommodative-social-responsibility.html#ixzz2RwEXN5YO>. Last accessed 30 April 2013.

Kanobi. B. (1999). What Are the Four Basic Approaches to Social Responsibility? Available at: <http://www.ehow.com/info_8254493_four-basic-approaches-social-responsibility.html> Last accessed 29 April 2013.

littlechica2009. (2011). Three Stances. Available: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Three-Stances-838626.html . Last accessed 30 April 2013.

Ricky W.Griffin. (2012). Management. Available: <http://books.google.com.my/books?id=ht6ca2s4NNMC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=accommodative+stance&source=bl&ots=RxKd_c-iDP&sig=oMuAFbzJineNqRNKeSARewHL3Ak&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fYZ_UZvkOcHTrQe_vYHQCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA>.  Last accessed 30 April 2013.

Shaka30. (2008). Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Available: <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Business-Ethics-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-135869.html> Last accessed 29 April 2013.