MGMT 3308_ Business Stewardship Weekly Discussion Board Posts

docx

School

Houston Baptist University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3308

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperSheep21

Weekly Reflection: Each student will post a weekly reflection on the course discussion board. The reflection pertains directly to the course content, including service-learning experiences, conversations in class, course content, and conversations with fellow classmates. The student will reflect on those aspects of the course that they find meaningful in answering the question(s): What stood out to me this week in class? What was new or helpful information? What information do I disagree or agree with? What information will be helpful in the workplace? What information helped me grow as a person? Each response should consist of two well-developed paragraphs that have no less than 150 words no more than 300 words and not more than 500 words total between the two responses. Week 1: During the first week of this course, we discussed the concept of corporate social responsibility which our textbook defines as a “responsibility among firms to meet the needs of their stakeholders and a responsibility among stakeholders to hold firms to account for their actions.” Another more simple definition of CSR is “good business” for “good society.” Overall, the idea of CSR should answer the question of what is the purpose of a for-profit firm. We also learned about the CSR hierarchy, which encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations. As a class, we discussed each of the responsibilities on the hierarchy and the possible reasons why they were placed in that particular order. For example, I learned that economic responsibilities are at the bottom because it is a foundational requirement in business that must meet all laws and regulations, as well as the demands of shareholders. This hierarchy remains relevant today and is becoming increasingly necessary due to the changing environment within which businesses operate. We were also introduced to the underlying ethical, moral, rational, and economic arguments for CSR. The ethical argument is based on two forms of ethical reasoning—consequentialist (utilitarian) and categorical (Kantian). The moral argument is an argument of moral reasoning that reflects the relationship between a company and the society within which it operates. The rational argument focuses on the benefits to the performance of avoiding external constraints. And lastly, the economic argument is that of economic self-interest for business. This topic then lead to the strategic CSR debate, in which the motion was: “There are no absolute ethical and moral standards; all values, norms, and laws in society are socially constructed and evolve over time.” The class then discussed the motion, bringing about several arguments I found to be interesting. For example, when debating whether there are absolute ethical and moral standards

because of religious beliefs or of moral principles that everyone follows, the rebuttal to each argument further made me reconsider the other side of the argument. Personally, I have not made up my mind on which side I’m on, but the class discussion did make me examine both sides, each with its own considerations to keep in mind. Replies: Hi Dillon, I agree that the economic responsibilities in the CSR hierarchy serve as the foundation upon which all other responsibilities rest. As the textbook states “Fundamentally, a firm’s economic responsibility is to produce an acceptable return for investors.” In addition, the economic responsibility of companies is to survive and support society in the long term. I understand your point when you say that businesses would be wasting their time on legal responsibilities if they are not fulfilling their economic ones first, but it's important to note that legal responsibilities are an essential component of pursuing economic gain within a law-based society. As mentioned in class, businesses operate in compliance with the law to make a profit. Therefore, it is the legal responsibility of a business to act within the framework of laws and regulations drawn up by the government and judiciary. In regards to your discussion about morality, I liked how you made a distinction between absolute and rational morality. Overall, I found your opinion on this particular topic to be insightful! Hi Danny, I too found it interesting that CSR could be defined in several different ways! According to the textbook, there is variance in the definition of CSR across different countries and cultures over time. Therefore we can consider CSR to be a fluid concept since it could mean different things to different people. However, this can also lead to some debate around this essential subject. In regards to the class discussion we had about absolute morality, I agree with you when you say we are born knowing right from wrong, and where you are from and how you have been raised heavily influence our opinions on this topic. Like you, I’m also in between both sides simply because the arguments raised during the discussion made me reconsider any preconceptions I had of this topic. Like Professor Webb mentioned in class, we shouldn’t receive anything uncritically, we should always be open to interpretations. Week 2: This week we watched a video of three panelists answering the age-old question of “what is the purpose of business?” The panelist I most agreed with was Dr. Samuel Gregg. He presented his thoughts and opinions in a clear and concise manner that made them easy to understand. He began his discussion by asking the question of what type of organization a business is and what

is it about a business that allows it to make its distinct contribution to the overall flourishing of individuals and communities in a given society. In order to identify this question, he identified several different criteria. The first is that businesses have voluntary associations. Second, the scope of their activity is determined but also restricted by the goal that's specific to the business as a voluntary association. Lastly, businesses serve this wider common good by pursuing what happens to be their particular common group. He then developed the argument that voluntary associations should not pursue goals or objectives that are more properly the responsibility of other groups. He states businesses should not act like “chess clubs or political parties.” To avoid this problem, it is necessary to identify what is the specific good that's served by business. Economic benefits are the good that is primarily realized through business associations and the good that binds all people together. Overall, I agree with Dr. Samuel Gregg’s view that businesses are responsible for driving the type of economic growth that overtime raises living standards and provides for society's material needs. And it is in this way that a business contributes to a society's common good and the purpose of business serves society as a whole. The panelist I most disagreed with was Professor Amelia Miazad. Throughout her discussion, she conveyed her views using extensive wording and phrases that made it difficult for me as a viewer to follow her argument and understand some of the points she was trying to make. Nonetheless, from what I was able to understand, she took an institutionalist approach to corporate law and examined the purpose of business debate not from the perspective of theoretical frameworks, but by observing what's actually happening in the business and investment community. Later on, she finally answers the initial question of what is the purpose of business by directly borrowing a definition from Jonathan Charkham and Anne Simpson, in which they state is that the “purpose of business is to meet society's needs and wants ethically and profitably.” Moreover, I found one point that Professor Miazad said to be interesting and that was when she said topics such as race and gender inequality are economic issues and not social issues. I think her view is shared by many other companies who are selective when choosing which social issues to take a stance on so as to not cause any economic tensions with their business connections. Overall, I think Professor Miazad made some interesting points throughout her discussion regarding her view of the purpose of business. Replies: Hi Prosper, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also agreed the most with Dr. Samuel Gregg. I liked how you mentioned his argument that businesses should pursue the specific good they are designed to fulfill. He illustrates this more clearly by using the example that “Judges don't fight wars and generals don't administer justice for civilians.” Therefore, it’s important to identify the good that a business serves in order to develop clear goals and objectives. Similarly, I also mentioned in my discussion that I has some difficulty following the argument Professor Miazad

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

was trying to make. As you mentioned, she believes that certain topics we perceive as social issues are actually economic issues to businesses. In my opinion, this correlates with Dr.Gregg’s point about how companies such as Apple are selective when it comes to expressing their stance on a particular social issue. He states “in the end, economic self-interest will override what you are parading to be your moral concern for a particular problem.” I agree with Dr. Gregg that businesses should be consistent in the way that they talk about these types of issues. Hi Stephen, I also agreed the most with Dr. Samuel Gregg and disagreed with Professor Miazad. Dr. Gregg was able to formulate an argument in a concise manner and made several good points. For example, a good point made was one that you mentioned of the importance of businesses being consistent in the way that they express themselves about social issues. The example of Apple is a great representation of how the inconsistency in the way a company talks about these types of issues can be problematic. Moreover, I agree with your thoughts on Professor Miazad. Similarly, I think many companies do share her view on the purpose of business and business ethics. In my opinion, Dr. Samuel Gregg did a great job in discussing that the purpose of business is to drive economic growth that overtime raises living standards and provides for society's material needs. Serving the wider common good allows businesses to make their distinct contribution to the overall flourishing of individuals and communities in a given society. Week 3: Dr. Brent Waters provides two arguments in defense of economic globalization in light of Christian ethics. The first one is that the world is part of God’s good creation, and it serves as the source of abundant goods that may be enjoyed by humans. Goods are not easily obtained at hand, rather they must be developed. For this reason, humans must develop the potential to create not only to meet their basic needs and wants but to fully enjoy and share the goods of creation. Dr. Waters states that this is all “part of our calling to exercise God’s mandate of limited dominion and stewardship.” He firmly believes that the global-market-based exchange offers at present the best possible means for both developing and distributing these material goods. The second argument is that globalization offers at present the most realistic and promising way of exercising a preferential option for the poor. The liberalization of trade and capital investment over the last two decades has helped lift a billion people out of dire poverty and create a global middle class. The best way to help the poor is to love them as neighbors and enable them to participate fully in new and expanding markets. In addition to these two main points, Dr. Waters’ underlying defense for economic globalization is based on his central argument that globalization and capitalism are not inherently incompatible with some central theological and moral convictions. He believes that much of Christian social teaching needs to recontextualize Scripture in order to align it with what’s going on in

contemporary circumstances. Hence, his goal in writing his book was to provide a conceptual understanding of globalization, through which Christians may both critically and constructively engage in this phenomenon. Lastly, Dr. Waters discusses his plea for not retreating from globalization. He explains that the poor would suffer the demise of globalization and it's important to acknowledge the benefits that globalization and capitalism offer, despite the troubling issues they may possess. Overall, I agree with several points Dr. Waters made in his defense of economic globalization. In particular, I agree with his claims that globalization is flawed and in need of repair, but nonetheless, serves as a “powerful force for good in our world that must be reckoned with” and that it is a “means for achieving human flourishing, and not an end in itself.” Replies: Hi Sofia, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also mentioned that one of Dr. Waters’ arguments in defense of economic globalization was that the world is part of God’s creation and serves as the source of abundant material goods that can be enjoyed by humans. This argument helped bring about another point that humans must develop the potential to create material goods in order to meet their basic needs and wants and to be able to enjoy and share the goods of creation. I also agree with your point that without globalization, our lives would be difficult to live. The life we lead today has been shaped and impacted by globalization. Moreover, it’s important to note that globalization and its underlying capitalism have troubling issues that need to be addressed, but have benefits that need to be acknowledged and strengthened. Hi Christian, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I liked how you considered and explained his viewpoint on an integrated global economy to be a central argument for his defense of economic globalization. I agree with your point that exchange is necessary for sustaining human life. To really flourish, we need everyday commercial exchanges, that we often take for granted. However, it’s important to note that market-based conditions are necessary, but won't help us flourish. They serve as a means, and not an end. I also agree when you say that we cannot enjoy goods if the country/place you live in isn’t developed. This ties well with Dr. Waters’ point that it is necessary for humans to develop and create material goods in order to meet their needs and wants, and fully enjoy and share the goods of creation. Week 4: The Friedman Doctrine, also known as the stakeholder theory, is the concept developed by the economist Milton Friedman that states that a firm's sole responsibility is to maximize its revenue

and increase returns to shareholders. Friedman argues that executives are merely employees of the owners, which are the shareholders. Executives must provide quality service to the owners first, before responding to social concerns. For the individual, however, they can do whatever they like with their money. Moreover, the Friedman Doctrine holds that decisions concerning social responsibility rest on the shoulders of the shareholders, not the executives of the company. Friedman argues that no company is obligated to engage in social responsibility unless the shareholders choose to do so. Hence, it is the shareholders who must decide on the use of the company’s resources for social purposes. Overall, I agree with certain aspects of the Friedman Doctrine, specifically the emphasis it places on maximizing shareholder value. However, given that we do live in different times, I think the doctrine should be modified to consider the responsibility a company has to its employees, the communities it operates in, and the environment. In this week’s video, four panelists debated the merits of the Friedman Doctrine. The first panelist, Professor Brad Cornell, disagreed with Friedman's characterization of maximizing profits. He believes that value is a long-term concept and that there is no short-term value. He ultimately agrees with Friedman that “the rules of the game have to be set through a fair democratic process and then once the rules have been properly set, private corporations should go back to attempting to maximize shareholder value.” The second panelist, Professor Joanne Ciulla, took a moral and philosophical approach when discussing her views on the Friedman Doctrine. She believes that one of the strengths of the article is that it forces us to consider who ought to be responsible and for what. She agrees with Friedman that we shouldn’t rely on businesses to take care of the public good. Overall, she thinks that the article is a little naive, that no business can really do it alone without engaging in many of the elements of CSR. The third panelist, Professor John Kay, believes that the social responsibility of business is to create great businesses that produce goods and services that people want, give satisfying employment to the people who work there, and generate returns for investors. Creating a successful company allows shareholders and everyone else to benefit from it. Therefore, he states that “shareholder value is a result, not a strategy.” Lastly, the fourth panelist, Professor Guido Palazzo, expressed his view while considering the historical context in which the article was written. He acknowledges Friedman’s point that companies should follow the rules of the game in their respective contexts which are the law and some moral rules that are necessary for economic transactions. Overall, he considers Friedman’s theory to be inadequate in today’s context. Replies: Hi Jasmine, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! You summarized The Friedman Doctrine in a clear and concise manner, making sure to discuss the main points of the article. I agree when you say that companies should not be forced to do CSR campaigns, instead, they should make the decision to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

engage in social responsibility-related activities. I also agree that companies who engage in CSR activities tend to receive benefits such as better brand recognition, positive business reputation, increased sales and customer loyalty, more opportunities for investment, as well as several others. Moreover, I too found the video and the panelists to be very engaging. Their arguments and viewpoints made the discussion very interesting and educational. In particular, Professor John Kay was very eloquently spoken and I agree with his view on what the corporate social responsibility of business really is, which is creating great businesses that produce goods and services that people want, serve customers well, and create returns for investors. Hi Jessica, I think you did a great job in summarizing the article and the viewpoints of each of the four panelists! Moreover, I liked how you mentioned Charles Hardy’s perspective on corporate stakeholder responsibility from our class discussion to make a distinction from Milton Friedman’s. It’s important to note that Friedman also believed that value to society is maximized if individual actors pursue their self-interest above all else. Similarly, I wrote in my discussion that I partly agree with the Friedman Doctrine, simply because I believe some modifications need to be made to it in order for it to be adequately aligned in today’s global context. As you mentioned, a business cannot be successful without profit, however, I believe that purpose of business has shifted not only to maximize profits for shareholders but to also benefit other stakeholders as well, including employees, customers, and citizens. Week 5: In the A Different Paradigm video, speaker Ken Blanchard discusses how to follow Jesus’ example of servant leadership. He believes that the world is in need of servant leaders, people who are there to serve rather than to be served. Blanchard states that “servant leadership is all about love, it’s about caring for people and making a difference in their lives, and it’s not about you.” Overall, Blanchard’s viewpoints made his discussion very interesting and educational. One point I found helpful was when he discussed the three parts of implementing and being a servant leader. The first is the servant part, it’s about the people you serve and not about you. The second part is the steward part, you don’t own anything, everything’s on loan. The third part is the shepherd part, which is to realize every single human being is important. With all these parts working together, servant leaders can create a vision and help everybody arrive at that vision and accomplish it. In the A Different Perspective video, both speakers Ken Blanchard and his wife Margie discuss the importance of developing your leadership point of view. They believe that it’s important to teach your leadership point of view so people can understand who you are, your beliefs, what to expect from you, and what you expect of them. Something I found helpful was when Margie referenced Colleen Barrett’s quote “People admire you for your accomplishments, but they love

you for your vulnerabilities.” I found this quote interesting because it suggests that vulnerability can be used as a resource in leadership and within the workplace that can positively impact the entire culture and creativity of a team. Servant leaders who share their vulnerabilities create a safe space for others to share their own, which in turn generates stronger team relationships. Therefore, vulnerability is a good quality a strong and successful leader should have. In the A Different Relationship video, speaker Nancy Ortberg speaks about the lessons she has learned from her experiences in her leadership and relationships with others. She believes leaders should serve to create a way for people to contribute in order to make something extraordinary happen. To be a leader you have to be great at leading teams, getting the right people in the right positions, moving the wrong people off or in different positions, and doing whatever it takes for the sake of the organization to flourish. Something I found helpful was when Ortberg said “Conflict is one of the best tools we have to get deep down to the issues and solve them at the root problem.” Therefore, conflict in the work setting serves as a powerful leadership tool for helping people understand each other and work better together. I find this interesting because people tend to view conflict in the workplace negatively, but leaders can use it to grow healthy relationships within their organizations which can ultimately result in effective productivity. Replies: Hi Bessy, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! You did a great job summarizing the main points of each video. I agree that a leader with great vision and direction can help bring about the next line of future leaders. In addition, Ken Blanchard discusses the three parts that go into implementing and being a servant leader which includes the servant part, steward part, and the shepherd part. I also found that same quote by Margie Blanchard interesting because it emphasizes the importance of extending grace to everyone, given all of our different levels of awareness. Lastly, I also wrote in my discussion that I found Ortberg’s view of conflict as a leadership tool to be helpful. Good conflict can produce new ideas, give opportunities for people to expand their skills, and address issues to improve overall performance. Hi Morris, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I liked how you mentioned Ken’s comment on how the country doesn’t have a vision or values because this directly ties into Ken’s argument for the need for servant leaders, people who are there to serve rather than to be served. Servant leaders are all about creating a vision and then helping everybody arrive at that vision and accomplish it. In regards to the different perspective video, I too found that same quote interesting. Vulnerability is an attribute of a great leader and can serve as a bridge to making deep connections within the workplace. Similarly, I also found Ortberg’s discussion of conflict to be

interesting. It shifted my view of conflict in the workplace and made me see it as a powerful leadership tool for helping people understand each other and work better together. Week 6: 1. Summarize the Court's treatment of the question of whether a corporate entity is a legal person. The US Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ruled that the contraceptive mandate implemented by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHC) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in cases of privately held, for-profit organizations. Moreover, the court found that for-profit corporations could be considered persons under the RFRA. The court’s opinion states the “Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law.” Although some lower court judges suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money, the court ruled that “If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.” Given all this, the court considers a corporate entity as a legal person and therefore capable of exercising religious beliefs. The effect this has on the outcome of the case is that the court’s decision protected the constitutional right of for-profit corporations to exercise their religious freedom. It also allowed for a religious exemption from laws that apply to the general public. In addition, the court’s ruling helped blur the distinction of HHC’S treatment between for-profit and non-profit entities, allowing both types of entities to certify religious objections to insurance providers and not require them to pay for contraceptives. As a result, the right to free exercise of religion extends to for-profit businesses as well as non-profit organizations. The court concluded that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violated RFRA, meaning the government had to offer exemptions to religious for-profit corporations that claimed the contraceptive mandate burdened their religious beliefs. Therefore, the US Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case exemplified a victory for religiously affiliated organizations. Replies: Hi Dillon, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I think you did a great job in summarizing the court's treatment of the question of whether a corporate entity is a legal person. I did my discussion post on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, so I found your response to the Citizens United case to be very interesting and educational! Both of these cases ruled that corporations are “persons”

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

and possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. The effect this had on the outcome of the Citizens United case was that it created some controversy regarding unlimited donations and the impact of corporate money flooding into elections. Critics of the case predicted that the ruling would "bring about a new era of corporate influence in politics", allowing companies and businesspeople to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests. Therefore, there has been a shift of power away from the political parties and toward the donors themselves. Hi Sofia, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also did my discussion post on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case. In this case, the US Supreme Court’s ruling determined a for-profit corporation’s ability to be classified as a person, therefore, Hobby Lobby could make free- exercise claims under the RFRA. I liked how you mentioned that since the corporate entity is a legal person they can sue and be sued, but they also possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals such as entering contracts, loaning and borrowing money, hiring employees, owning assets, and paying taxes. I agree that one of the effects that this had on the outcome of the case was Hobby Lobby’s religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate. Another effect it had was that the right to free exercise of religion was extended to for-profit businesses. As a result, this landmark case now allows privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that their owners religiously object to. Week 7: In my opinion, I believe making a profit is essential for a company acting with social responsibility. Profit is defined as the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. The textbook also states that “profit is what drives all for-profit organizations.” Therefore, profit is an essential component of operating a business. The video, “What is Profit?”, discussed what profit is and why profit must ultimately be placed in a moral framework of human action and human responsibility. In the video, they said that profit “enables people to engage in charity and philanthropy, and they can use their profit to care for the poor and local communities, build schools, hospitals, churches, and enrich cultural life.” Therefore, profit allows businesses to contribute to the greater good by taking a certain part of their profit and reinvesting it in society. Over time profitable companies spread

wealth to lots of people through salaries, benefits, and profit-sharing with their employees, and income with their suppliers. This creates an economic and social multiplier effect on the community since the employees pay taxes, invest in other businesses, and give to charity, community, churches, hospitals, etc. As a result, profitable businesses can have significant impacts on the economy and society. Several business leaders believe that profit serves as a reason for not being able to pursue CSR. However, this perceived gap between a firm’s pursuit of profit and its social responsibility is bridged by strategic CSR. Strategic CSR can be defined as “the incorporation of a CSR perspective within a firm’s strategic planning and core operations so that the firm is managed in the interests of a broad set of stakeholders to optimize value over the medium to long term.” Moreover, profitable firms seeking to create value across their broad range of stakeholders will also be optimizing their contribution to societal well-being. Profit generation is central to the concept of strategic CSR. Strategic CSR focuses specifically on how the firm makes money (through the hundreds and thousands of operational decisions made every day) rather than focusing on what the firm does (make money). Therefore, strategic CSR calls for a focus on profit optimization, which finds ways to increase profit with the available resources under the given constraints and to make the best use of them. Overall, implementing strategic CSR into a firm’s core operations will enable the firm to optimize its profits, which in turn can produce positive impacts on society. Week 8: The three parts of a strategy are strategic analysis, strategy formulation, and strategy implementation. Strategic analysis is the process conducted by firms to analyze their operational context (internal and external) as the basis for its strategy. To do this, there is a wide array of tools and concepts available to executives. A firm can use a SWOT analysis to identify its internal strengths and weaknesses, while also analyzing the external opportunities and threats. “The goal of a firm’s strategy, therefore, is to recognize its strengths and align them with the opportunities that are present in the environment, ensuring that the strategy and tactics remain consistent with its vision and mission.” In addition, as an extension of SWOT, two competing analytical tools can also be used: the resource perspective and the industry perspective. The resource perspective is an internal perspective of the firm that identifies its resources, capabilities, and core competencies as the main determinant of its sustainable competitive

advantage. The industry perspective is an external perspective of the firm that identifies the structure of the environment in which the firm operates (in particular, its industry) as the main determinant of its marketplace success. The resource and industry perspectives are valuable conceptual tools that provide insight into the firm and its operating context. Moreover, strategy formulation is the selection of activities that enable the firm to combine its strengths and opportunities. It is the construction of a firm’s strategy, usually done during regular planning sessions (often annually) by the senior executives of the firm. It involves setting goals (define success), accounting for the firm’s competencies (internal analysis), and evaluating the competitive environment (external analysis). Lastly, strategy implementation is the application of a firm’s strategy in practice, ideally done by all employees in the organization on a day-to-day basis through regular operations. Implementation deals with reality by diffusing the strategy throughout the firm, ensuring that everyone is on the same page. It also involves designing the structure and systems that are aligned with the strategy, building the culture while reinforcing the vision and mission, and hiring the people and the skills that complement the firm’s competencies. In addition, both strategy formulation and implementation must reassess regularly according to the industry norms and business cycles. Reference: Chandler, D. (2020). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. In my opinion, corporate philanthropy is not a waste of money. The book defines corporate philanthropy as “Contributions by firms that benefit stakeholders and the community, often made through financial or in-kind donations to nonprofit organizations” (Chandler, 2020). Often times corporate philanthropy is perceived as inefficient and ineffective, such as in the case of Toms Shoes, which has long been criticized for the effects its “buy one, give one” business model has on the communities it intends to help. However, corporate philanthropy can serve as a competitive advantage for a company. In the article The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy,” Michael Porter and Mark R. Kramer further discuss and support this claim. “Corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context —the quality of the business environment in the location or locations where they operate” (Porter & Kramer, 2002). In addition, corporate philanthropy can also bring a company’s social and economic goals into alignment and improves its long-term business prospects. I agree with the article when it states that the “more closely a company’s philanthropy is linked to its competitive context, the greater the company’s contribution to society will be” (Porter & Kramer, 2002).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Moreover, there are many other benefits that a company can receive when they participate in corporate philanthropy. For instance, companies are able to create a positive public image for themselves, further enhance their relationships with consumers, foster a positive work environment and employee engagement and generate greater business value. A prime example of a company that practices corporate philanthropy is Exxon Mobil. They have devoted substantial resources to improving basic conditions such as roads and the rule of law in the developing countries where it operates. They also have an employee matching gift program, in which the company financially matches donations that their employees make to a nonprofit organization. As a result, they have donated up to $3 for every $1 given by employees, with a cap of $22,500 each year. Additionally, it’s important for corporations to rethink where they focus their philanthropy and how they go about their giving. Overall, I believe that philanthropy that is context-focused can offer companies a new set of competitive tools to make the world a better place. References: Chandler, D. (2020). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. (2021, September 17). Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-competitive-advantage- of-corporate-philanthropy 5 successful corporate philanthropy examples . Givinga. (2022, February 21). Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://www.givinga.com/insights/blog/5-corporate-philanthropy-examples-inspire- csr-strategy/ Hi Jasmine, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also believe that corporate philanthropy is not a waste of money. I think you did a great job in explaining your position well! I agree with your claim that corporate philanthropy is not a waste of money when it is utilized in a correct manner. I believe companies using context-focused philanthropy are able to achieve both social and economic gains. I liked how you used Mattress Mack as an example of a company that has thrived off the benefits of corporate philanthropy such as improving brand awareness and reputation, enhancing its relationships with consumers, and building community support. As you mentioned, Mattress Mack addresses rising issues in the community, not just those that are convenient. This goes hand in hand with the notion that corporate philanthropy does not just address a company’s self-interest, it benefits many through broad social change. If a company’s philanthropy only involved its own interests it would not qualify as a charitable contribution, thus, this could ultimately threaten a company’s reputation. Hi Randy,

I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I agree with you that corporate philanthropy is not a waste of money when used properly. I liked how you provided an example of a company that succeeded in corporate philanthropy and another that did not. For, Johnson & Johnson, their corporate philanthropy program has been able to make a positive impact on the community because of its sincere commitment to bettering society. On the other hand, Toms business model of giving away free shoes has led to disruption and negative long-term impacts on local economies. From this, it is evident that those companies that are more socially responsible and help their communities through corporate philanthropy receive impactful benefits such as enhanced public image, customer loyalty, increased sales, and better company culture. Lastly, it’s important for companies that are considering participating in corporate philanthropy to identify where they will focus their philanthropy and how they will go about their giving.

MGMT 3308_ Business Stewardship Weekly Discussion Board Posts

Related Documents