A Critical Analysis of Company Q’s Social Responsibility Essay

AbstractThis essay is a small analysis of the behaviors that community Q has demonstrated with regard to social business. In essence, companion Qs behaviors, while reasonable reactions to maintain financial viability and avoid percentage to employee malfeasance, actually demonstrate a profound solicitude that results in a negative public image that go out end up be it more than in the long term. I leave behind unfold solutions that will provide a cost savings while keeping teleph angiotensin-converting enzymer Q from making further embarrassing errors.A Critical Analysis of Comp either Qs Social ResponsibilityUnfortunately, family Q has non made reckless decisions as it relates to social responsibility. on that point are 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 furnishing health-conscious sustenance items yet later it could locate the highest-margin pr oducts it could find and 3) ashamedly refused to provide stale viands to the local fare bank under the auspices that it was touch that its employees would steal the pabulum instead of donating it. The goal of this analysis is not only to highlight this absurd behavior and reasoning simply in addition to passing play solutions that are conducive to meeting social-responsibility jobs and maintaining financial viability. With any hope, Company Q will heed the counsel and institute immediate changes.Scenario 1The news latterly reported the shuttering of two of Company Qs grocery stores in vicinity A and Neighborhood B. Although the company gave no public statement most the nature of these closings, public financial disclosures indicate the rationale The stores were not realiseable. Of course, in a free-market economy, companies see the option to close un expediencyable stores. But in addition to being a free market, we are also an economy that operates on high social prin ciplesor, at the very least, weshould be. Company Q obviously missed this memorandum when it was sent 30 years ago. With these stores removed from twain neighborhoods, where are the residents of those neighborhoods supposed to shop? And with the removal of the stores, what impetus do the a few(prenominal) otherwise grocers have to keep prices reasonable for people of that socio-economic level?Scenario 1ResolutionI recognize that a possible rebuttal to any of the aforementi stard straitss is, If the residents are not shopping there and putting silver 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 sustenance choices these residents want? Is the layout of your stores conducive to these residents? Are the prices too high? Do the round you employ in these stores look like t he residents who shop there? If the firmness is no to any of these questions, we will have unlocked one of galore(postnominal) 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 nutrition 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 doubly those of its competitors. This nub translates to the community as If Company X can profit obscenely from offer health-food options to its consumers, it will then be concerned with oblation healthy options. Otherwise, let the American obesity epidemic rage on unfetterednot our problem Scenario 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 supply its brawny 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 engage ones. Or Company Q could offer the same food products but ab initio make less of a profit on it by offering discounts on it initially as a sort of enticement to customers to produce interested and promote the food to their network of friends and family. This possibility could theoretically construct increased demand for the healthy food and allow more positiveness for the company in the long run. C ompany 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 insulting 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 question that every company has a right to employ profits, and I recognize that Company Q is ultimately attempting to do just that. However, it is tyrannical 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 kick in itself in line with many other companies in being rightfully customer centric.