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.
