Nike vs Adidas Essay Example for Free

Nike vs Adidas Essay My area of study for this project would be more on comparing the performances for Nike and Adidas for the past 5 years. In this project I would explain the performance such as growth in profits, revenues, market share, the company employers and employees, size of the market share, steps for increasing the social performance, products performance, dividends per share, assets and the company investment. Nike and Adidas and have been the top two leading sport companies in the sport industry over the past few decades. These two companies sell and offer wide range of products for the customers and their products offered is mainly on sports wear for men and women and caters to consumers from different age groups. Their products consist on clothing such as jerseys, shirts, t-shirts, shorts and pants. These companies also provide the customers varieties of footwear such as sports shoes, casual shoes, boots, sandals and stockings. Besides that, fashion accessories are also offered from these three companies such as bags, watch, bracelets, wallets and purse. And lastly they also offer a wide range of sport gears for their customers. Nike and Adidas have also been the top sponsors in the sport industry. Sponsoring their products is important for the companies to get brand recognition, building their brand image and to promote their latest products. Nike and Adidas have been sponsoring equipments, clothing and accessories for athletes and coaches in sport tournaments and events. For instance, these three companies sponsor their products for football, soccer, basketball, baseball and many more. These companies also include slogan and motto for their company. Nike’s motto is â€Å"Just Do It’ which is the signature of the brand which makes their products and the company recognizable to consumers. As for Adidas, their current motto is â€Å"Impossible is Nothing† which serves as an encouragement to athletes for their sports. Origins and History of Nike and Adidas Nike, originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports was founded by University of Oregeon track athlete Philip Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman in January 1964. The company initially operated as a distributor for Japanese shoe maker Onitsuka Tiger, making most sales at track meets out of Knights automobile. The companys profits grew quickly, and in 1966, Blue Ribbon Sports opened its first retail store, located on Pico Boulevard in Santa Monica, California. By 1971, the relationship between Blue Ribbon Sports and Onitsuka Tiger was nearing an end. BRS prepared to launch its own line of footwear, which would bear the newly designed Swoosh by Carolyn Davidson. The Swoosh was first used by Nike in June 1971, and was registered with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 22, 1974. Adidas was founded in 1948 by Adolf Adi Dassler, following the split of Gebruder Dassler Schuhfabrik between him and his older brother, Rudolf. Rudolf would later establish Puma, which was the early rival of Adidas. Registered in 1949, Adidas is currently based in Herzogenaurach, Germany. The companys clothing and shoe designs typically feature three parallel bars, and the same motif is incorporated into Adidass current official logo. The Three Stripes were bought from the Finnish sport company Karhu Sports in the 1950s. Objective The objective of the project is to measure and compare the marketing strategies of the top two sport fashion companies which are Nike and Adidas. So this project would be mainly conducted to resolute the similarities and differences of the two sport companies marketing strategies. Besides that, this project will compare on the performance of Nike and Adidas which include the company’s growth in revenues, profits or net income, dividends per share, size of company in the market, performances of employees, steps for increasing the social responsibility performance, products performance, stock performance and the company performances in investment. Problem Statement Firstly, the sport industry is becoming ever more competitive, with new brands competing for a share of consumers for the products in the market. Building a relationship with customers is a challenge facing for Nike and Adidas. This is because the companies need to be followed up with new trends and styles in the industry for their customers in order for them to build their products brand and image. Secondly, there was a case happened in China where a local Chinese domestic sports goods manufacturer company called Li Ning opened 6917 stores in mainland China by December 31,2008 aking it 1241 more than the year of 2007. During the year 2008, Li Ning has published its financial report which states that due to the Beijing Olympic Games, the company made total revenues of CNY 669(million) a year on-year-increase of 53. 8% compared to the year 2007. Not only that, Li Ning made an overall entry into the market of Southeast Asia. Now they have stores in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and other Southeast Asia countries. This became a problem for Nike and Adidas where the two international giants see recession in their performance in China. According to the financial report of Adidas, the company’s net profit decreased by 95% to â‚ ¬ 130 million in the first half of the year. As for the sales revenue, it decreased by 2% to â‚ ¬ 5. 03 billion. As for Nike numbers of distributors were reduced in the year 2008 due with the bad performance. Thirdly, the problem that attracted me to do this project is because I would like to know why Nike had low growth in revenue in the year of 2009. Nike had only increased 3% of its revenue to $ 19176. (million), with net income falling 21% to $ 1486. 7(million). As for Adidas, they also had the same problem. But the problem for Adidas was worst compared to Nike because at the year of 2009, the company net income is â‚ ¬ 10381(million) which decreased compared to the year 2008 which is â‚ ¬ 10799(million). These two companies had their difficulties is the year of 2009. So I would eager to find out about the problems they faced during that year. Significance of Study The importance of doing this project would be very important to other parties and companies. In this case, small and medium enterprise (SME) would get the advantages and benefits because they would know how the bigger companies such as Nike and Adidas operates their businesses, how they sell their products and services to their customers, what kind of marketing strategies they use, how the companies measure their performances and the most important reason is how Nike and Adidas continues to become a big market player in the sports industry. As part of that, this project will comprise mainly of small to medium-sized companies to engage in a diversity of activities which includes manufacturing of sport goods, sport tourism, media, and construction of venues. For example, small and medium enterprise (SME) in Malaysia can take the opportunity to get involved with sport products, services, sponsorships, hosting up international sport tournaments and events. And not to forget, the involvement of (SME) would also helps our country in the tourism sector because many athletes and participants will get to travel and visit our country and this will relatively build the countries economic performances. Corporate social responsibilities (CSR) also play a role for every sport companies in responsibility to act in a way that positively contributes to their stakeholders and the communities in which they exist. In this case, it is increasingly important for the social and economic issues such as rapid technological change, a diverse and aging population, environmental changes and mounting concerns regarding the country’s growing social divide have resulted in focusing on the responsibility of firms to the communities in which they operate. (Margolis Walsh 2003; Sagawa Segal 2000) Justification The reason I chose this topic is because the project is interesting as sports is an important part of todays society and plays a large role in many peoples lives. From a social standpoint, sport plays a positive role in uniting people from different social backgrounds. This can aid peoples understanding and tolerance of each other. As far as education is concerned, sport is an important part of every childs schooling, as it plays a big role in both their physical and mental development. It teaches children how to work as a part of a team and cooperate with others, while at the same time improving physical condition. The second reason I chose sports industry because this industry is growing rapidly in Malaysia. There are continuous demands from customers, sports athletes, and models for these sport products. The Malaysian sport industry is considered as a young industry comprising of small and medium-sized businesses. The Malaysian sports industry comprises of companies engaging in a diversity of activities, from the manufacturing of sport goods, sport tourism, media, to the construction of sport facilities. The third why I chose these two companies is because Nike and Adidas has been the biggest market share player in the sports industry. Nike controls 31% of athletic sportswear which is the highest market share compared to other sport companies in the year 2007. As for Adidas, they control the second highest share of athletic sportswear which is 16% of the market in 2007. As for other companies Puma controls 7%, Reebok 6%, New Balance 6%, and Converse 4%. Expected Outcomes The expected outcome which I can conclude is Nike would have the better performance for this year 2010 because their net income/profit for the past few years have been stable. Ever since the year of 2006, Nike’s net income/profit stands at $ 1392. (million). As for the year 2007, it increased to $ 1491. 5(million). At the year 2008, Nike’s net income/profit increased with huge and outstanding amount of $ 1883. 4(million). But by the year of 2009, their company had a decreased in their net income/profit which is $ 1486. 7(million). As for Adidas, the company would not have a better performance compared to Nike because in the year 2009, their net income was only â‚ ¬ 245(million). Their net income decreased with a huge margin compared to the year 2008 which is â‚ ¬ 642(million). So the key impact from the financial statement of year 2009. The net income of Adidas reduced more than 60% in 2009. But Nike was capable of stabilizing the results with a minor reduction of only 20% in 2009. As for the performance of dividend development, Nike has shown increases in its number. For the year 2006, Nike’s dividends declared per common share stands at $ 0. 59. Their company dividend increased to $ 0. 98 in the year 2009. But as for Adidas, they showed a decline from the year 2006 to 2009. In the year 2006, Adidas dividends declared per common share stands at â‚ ¬ 0. 42. While in the year 2009, Adidas dividends declared per common share felt to â‚ ¬ 0. 5. As for the expected outcome for the year 2010, Nike would be expected to increase their dividends successfully because their dividend declared per common share has been rising steadily. As for the company’s asset assessment, I can expect that Nike would do better in the assets performance in the year 2010 because their total assets have been increasing from the year 2006-2009. The total of assets that Nike had in the year 2006 was $ 9,869(million), in the year of 2007, Nike’s assets increased to $ 10,688. 3(million). Last year, Nike had a total of assets of $ 13,250(million). This shows that Nike’s assets have been increasing and it is expected to rise in the year 2010. As for Adidas, their company’s total asset is not stable from the year shown in 2006-2009. In 2006, Adidas totals assets stands at â‚ ¬ 8379(million). It decreased on the following year to 8325(million). As for the year 2008, their total assets were increased to â‚ ¬ 9533(million). As for 2009, their total assets decreased to a total of â‚ ¬ 8875(million). Ever since Adidas total of assets is not stable, I can expect that Nike would do better in the assets performance. References http://condor.depaul.edu/~aalmaney/StrategicAnalysisofNike.htm http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1693768.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adidas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reebok

The Great Gatsby: The American Dream

The Great Gatsby: The American Dream According to Aristotle, there are a number of characteristics that identify a tragic hero: he must cause his own downfall; his fate is not deserved, and his punishment exceeds the crime; he also must be of noble stature and have greatness. These are all characteristics of Jay Gatsby, the main character of Fitzgeralds novel, The Great Gatsby. Jay Gatsby is a tragic hero according to Aristotles definition. In Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby, all the characters are, in one way or another, attempting to become happier with their lives. The characters in the novel are divided into two groups: the rich upper class and the poorer lower class(West egg and East egg) though the main characters only try to make their lives better, the American dream they are all trying to achieve is eventually ruined by the harsh reality or life. The American Dream consists of success, fame, and wealth. Many Americans have the idea of the white collar life; a job, a house, a loving wife, and kids. This is what Jay Gatsy dreams of having with his Daisy. The American Dream changes people in ways that make them for better or drive them towards their fall. Throughout the novel, Fitzgerald shows how dreams are destroyed, no matter what the dreams consist of, money, material status, or just simply to be happy. Fitzgerald also shows that the failure of the American Dream is unavoidable in a sense that nothing can be as perfect as one could imagine. Without hopes or dreams life would be empty. The American Dream is something every person works for throughout his or her life. Although the American Dream is admirable, it is impossible to achieve eternal satisfaction. The American Dream is just that, a dream. Jay Gatsby is known as the wealthy man who is trying to move forward to reach The American Dream. His life represents The American Dream in the way that he was corrupted by his love for Daisy while reaching the dream you have to be corrupted by money. Money symbolized by the color green represents wealth which is one of the factors to achieving the American dream. Gatsby is portrayed as the tragic character because for love he was willing to abandon his family and change his lifestyle so he can be finally accepted by Daisy. The shirts symbolize the change in Gatsby from when he was younger to the present. Daisy likes when Tom has shirts because they represent the money they have to buy those shirts and when Gatsby shows her the shirts he had bought for him she is appalled by the difference of what he was in the past that she nearly cries. Gatsby wants a better life and he thinks he can do it if he puts his mind to it, which is also a part of the American Dream. However, Gatsbys dream collapses when he fails to win Daisy and is not accepted by the upper class. All his money cannot help him when old man Wilson fires a gun at him. Gatsby sees himself as a failure when Daisy chooses Tom instead of him. The failure of Gatsbys hoped for life relates to the failure of the American Dream. Without his dream Gatsby has nothing, nothing to keep him going, no direction, and no purpose to live. Myrtle Wilson is a character who fails to achieve the American Dream. Her desire to reach the upper class brought her to a downfall. Though Myrtle Wilson makes an attempt to escape her own class and pursue happiness with the rich, she ends up gaining nothing and eventually dies. She is basically a victim of the group she wanted to join. Myrtle tries to become like Tom by having an affair with him and taking on his way of living, but in doing so she becomes unsatisfied with her life. Her constant clothing changes show that she is unhappy with her life, she changes personalities every time she changes her dress: with the influence of the dress her whole personality had also undergone a change. The intense vitality was converted into impressive hauteur(pg. 35). Myrtle raised her eyebrows in despair at the shiftlessness of the lower orders.These people! You have to keep after them all the time.'(pg. 36). . Myrtle tries to create a new life for herself but eventually falls victim to it wh ile trying to be someone she wasnt. Myrtle felt trapped with her husband and her stature and she pushed harder to attain what she felt would benefit her. In the end though, she dies because of a mistake that she made due to her senses of lust and somewhat greed. Myrtle represents the unfulfilled American dream. Fitzgerald embodied the American experience as success and failure, illusion and disillusion, dream and nightmare. The contradictions he experienced and put into fiction heighten the implications of the dream for individual lives: the promise and possibilities, violations and corruptions of those ideals of nationhood and personality dreamed into being. Jay Gatsby and Myrtle Wilson have both tried to accomplish The American Dream and that led them to their tragic flaw. The American dream represents corruption and lies. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is the American classic of a tragedy that will have the characters live on forever as an example of the wrong impact the American dream can have.

Causes of Increased Corporate Social Responsibility

Causes of Increased Corporate Social Responsibility Abstract Aim The main aim of this research was to establish the extent to which the increased priority of CSR is in actuality a reflection of companies acting to meet the interests of society or simply a means for generating profits in a marketing oriented way. In this regard, the research sought to explore CSR behaviour in depth and in turn tried to establish companies rationales for CSR behaviour in the UK food retail industry. Methods A mixed methodology with both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis were used in the research. Qualitative content analysis was used for analysing the contents of food retailers websites pertaining to CSR. Store Audits were conducted in order to identify the CSR practices and extent to which they are exercised by different food retailers. In depth formal interviews were conducted with key decision makers with the goal of obtaining information on CSR activities. Lastly, a questionnaire survey was used with the UK consumer population as the population of interest. Results The members of the UK Food Retail Industry showed that they have given paramount importance to CSR in order to somehow become a better neighbour to their customers, render them effective public services and at the same time contribute to the preservation and protection of the environment. The responses to the questions revealed a common rationale behind their CSR policies and ensured that the organisation established a good reputation amongst the members of the community, thereby enabling the latter to maintain a certain level of trust for the UK food retailers. Conclusion The study supported the fact highlighted by previous studies that companies have become more aware and mindful of their responsibilities, roles and rights towards the society. They were seen to have implemented activities, practices and guidelines in order to fulfill their legal, ethical, social and environmental roles and responsibilities towards stakeholders, employees, customers, and environment and society in general. However, it can also be realised that these policies contribute to the building of trust in the customers towards the organisations. Thus, as the trust is established, it is more likely that the customers will remain loyal to the organisation, thereby increasing their chances of generating profit. Chapter 1: Introduction For many years Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been associated with related terms like business ethics, corporate performance, corporate accountability, corporate responsibility and stake holder involvement. In recent years CSR has grown into a well-known collective expression. The growth of CSR has been a result of organisations realising their responsibility toward their stake holders in the context of business scandals (e.g. Enron) and a growing concern for environmental changes (e.g. global warming). The European Union defines CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (European Commission, 2002). According to Vernon and Mackenzie (2007), the question of whether companies should seek to do good by exercising CSR, rather than concentrate solely on wealth creation, is no longer interesting and in fact the focus today is on how well companies do good. Increasingly stake holders expect companies to take on public responsibility. Companies engage in CSR through diverse activities such as donating to charitable organisations (e.g. Ben and Jerrys), green activities (e.g. moves by major retailers to eliminate plastic bags and promote green bags) and by implementing environment friendly purchase and supply policies. A survey conducted by Research International, however, found that while CSR practices are commendable, they need to be viewed with caution as these activities are not sufficient in and of themselves (Social Funds, 2000). The scepticism about CSR activities is related to the growing trend for organisations to drift away from the hard issues and concentrate more on soft issues. The Research International survey revealed that despite ignoring crucial issues such as treatment of employees, and commitment to the local community, some companies portray themselves as socially responsible using charity and other CSR activities, which deal with soft issues (Social Funds, 2000). Sceptics also believe that CSR is often used purely as a marketing tool to improving business performance. In the context of CSR being rated as a priority by companies in the last few years (Cost Sector, 2009), this research aims to study the changing nature of CSR, with particular focus on an organisations motivation for engaging in socially responsible activities (whether it is a response to societys expectations or a strategic move by a company). By contributing to a deeper understanding of rationales, notions, risks and effects of CSR, the proposed research provides strategic insights on the subject. With findings based on both corporate and stake holder perspectives on the subject, this research aims to contribute to useful and interesting reading for both businesses and stake holders. The findings of this study are based on the UK food retail industry. Food retailers make a good context for study especially considering the several socially and environmentally responsible schemes that they are involved in and the significance of CSR asserted by industry standards. In this attempt Chapter Two provides the background and review of literature conducted in order to extensively analyse previous works published with regard to Corporate Social Responsibility and the manner by which it applies to the members of the UK food retail industry. Chapter Three discusses the different methods used in order to obtain data for the study to obtain relevant results. Chapter Four then presents the results obtained from the use of the different methodologies enumerated in the study. The results shall then be discussed in relation to the aim of the study in Chapter Five and conclusions would be provided by answering the research questions. Lastly in Chapter 6 we will give us an understanding of the scope and limitations of this study. Chapter 2: Background and Literature Review 2.1 Background of the study Societys preoccupation with the social responsibility of organisations has existed since at least the early 1930s and probably even before. Wells (2002) notes that it is perhaps the infamous Dodd-Berle correspondence contained within the Harvard Law Review Issue of 1931-32 that launched the debate on corporate social responsibility. The debate started when corporate law professor Adolf A. Berle Jr. published an article arguing for the imposition of legal control on management so that only their shareholders would benefit from their decisions (Berle, 1931). E.M. Dodd, another professor from Harvard, published an article that addressed the issue raised by Berle. He argues that besides focusing on the interests of the shareholders, managers must also take into consideration the concerns of the employees, consumers and the organisations stakeholders. Berle (1931) responded by saying that companies should â€Å"not abandon emphasis on the view that business corporations exist for the sol e purpose of making profits for their stockholders until such time as [one is] prepared to offer a clear and reasonably enforceable scheme of responsibilities to someone else† (Berle, 1932, p. 1365). Since the idea of corporate social responsibility has its roots in the legal community, several academic disciplines have followed the debate with little discussion occurring between and among them (Radin, 1999). More specifically, researchers in the field of business ethics have spent substantial effort in the past two decades to come up with a stakeholder theory that would eventually fall under corporate social responsibility, existing as a separate approach to management. The issue of corporate social responsibility was not discussed after the argument between Berle and Dodd. It resurfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s against the backdrop of the civil rights movement in America. This is due to the fact that the top agendas of politicians, public interest groups, individual citizens and corporations have been largely influenced by concerns about the environment, product safety, workplace health and safety, racial and sex discrimination, urban congestion, political corruption and technological advances. Apart from this, the increasing influence and power that organisations possessed during this period (this period being the 60s and 70s?) has eventually led to a widespread societal belief that large businesses have a duty towards ensuring the betterment of society (Banner, 1979). The power and influence of corporations, actual or perceived, and the impact of their economic, social and political actions on society in general, has led to a broad societal expectation that corporations be held accountable for their actions. Simply put, there is growing public sentiment that organisations must be responsible enough to weigh the impact of their decisions on the different parties involved. As a result, they must be able to eliminate, minimize or compensate for the harmful damages that they may inflict on society. The above mentioned justification is basically derived from a moral position that corporations are expected, and should, behave like any citizen in society. This expectation is also justified on the basis that corresponding responsibilities always accompany power. As Dodd (1932) asserts, â€Å"power over the lives of others tends to create on the part of those most worthy to exercise it a sense of responsibility.† Moreover, the increasing power of organisations has resulted in a societal expectation that corporations act proactively and at the same time, carry out a leadership role in order to provide solutions to problems that the world faces (CSR Survey, 2003). This means that given that organisations frequently have more resources than governments, they should give something back to the society. In the same manner, they are also called to allocate and offer some of their resources to carry out good works and help the less fortunate sectors of society. Overall, this CSR goal is justified as follows: initially, a societal need is identified. For instance, areas such as education, healthcare, low-income housing or the arts may require funding that cannot be generated privately or that government is unable to provide to enable these institutions to continue making goods or services available or even to exist. Second, corporations are identified as capable of filling the gap by providing either funds or infrastructure to address the need. In other words, an appeal to organisations is made because they frequently have the capacity, in accordance with their size and reach, to act as agents of â€Å"social progress† (Kahn, 1997). As repeatedly mentioned earlier, corporate social responsibility has been required of companies that have both, actual or perceived power and influence. This is why multinational corporations that operate parts of the globe where people fear the effects and consequences of Globalisation are expected to perform such duties. This, according to Zinkin (2004) is usually brought about by the fact that these corporations are usually seen as enemies rather than friends. Thus, to regain the trust and confidence of the people, the company must be able to make their social responsibility known as this is said to give them legitimacy to operate in a given country (Zinkins, 2004). 2.2 Literature Review In order to gain a better understanding of the concepts and principles of CSR, the review of literature is divided into the following sections: 1. Corporate Social Responsibility: Definitions and History, 2. Corporate Social Responsibility and the UK Food Retail Industry, and 3. Summary 2.2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility: Definitions and History Globalisation, the increasing influence of companies including small and medium enterprises, a change in the position and opinion of governments, and a paradigm shift in working with and appreciating the importance of building solid relations with stakeholders- are all factors that have contributed to changing the dynamics of the relationship between businesses and society. Businesses have always been mindful of their responsibilities towards society. The concept of companies sharing their resources and influence with other groups has been repeatedly spoken about for centuries (Bowe, 1953). Nowadays, companies have become more aware and mindful of their responsibilities, roles and rights towards the society. They are seen to have implemented activities, practices and guidelines in order to fulfill their legal, ethical, social and environmental responsibilities to stakeholders, which include shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and the environment and society in general. These actions have been given many terms, including: (1) Corporate Responsibility or CR, (2) Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility or CSER, (3) Corporate Citizenship, (4) Corporate Accountability, and lastly, (5) Socially Responsible Business (SRB) (Raynard Forstater, 2002). However, the most famous terminology would have to be Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR. CSR first began to be written about by academics in the 20th century. The term Corporate Social Responsibility and the modern view on CSR are largely attributed to Howard Bowen, who is considered by many scholars, especially Carroll, as the father of CSR. Bowen conceived CSR as an integral part of a larger vision of a better American society with a robust and socially responsible business sector. Before Bowen wrote his book in 1953, CSR was not a generally accepted practice among businesses in the United States. Carroll (1991) writes that in the early years, businesses believed that their only obligation was to their shareholders and their only function was the quest of financial improvement in order to provide the greatest financial return to their shareholders. The errors of this way of thinking soon became apparent. For one, businesses still had to work within laws set down by governments. In the 1960s, groups advocating social issues pushed for a more extensive concept of responsibilities for businesses. In the 1970s, various organisations in charge of the social issues pushed by the activist groups were created in the U.S. Some of these organisations were the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). These governmental organisations allowed the establishment of national public policy that now acknowledged the legality of environmen tal issues. The new policies forced businesses to re-examine their own strategies and to learn how to develop a balance between making a profit and the legal and ethical responsibilities placed on them by a widening range of stakeholders. For Bowen (1953), businesses become prominent in society because society needs the products and services provided by these companies. This grants businesses vital decision-making power in the way they affect the lives of many people. Therefore, for a balanced business-society relationship to continue, Bowen (1953) asks what responsibilities society can reasonably expect businessmen to assume. The answer to this question, Bowen states, is corporate social responsibility. He defines CSR as a social obligation that necessitates businessmen to engage in policies, formulate decisions, and implement actions that are considered desirable when connected with the objectives and values of society. He took a broad view when defining what business responsibilities include—responsiveness, stewardship, social audit, corporate citizenship and rudimentary stakeholder theory. Bowens concept of a mutual relationship between business and society is echoed by Porter and Kramer (2006), who point out that the value of CSR lies in the values companies share with societies they exist in. Businesses operate in social contexts and societies need the products and services that businesses provide, thus there is a mutual need for each entity. CSR, therefore, makes it possible to promote a collaborative relationship between business and society. Many have tried to create a definition of corporate social responsibility that encompasses its functions and the range of responsibilities it entails. One of the most comprehensive is that of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2007), which defines CSR as the long-lasting commitment that businesses create which compels them to behave in an ethical manner and to add to the development of the economy while helping improve the quality of life of their employees and their families in addition to the lives of those in the local communities and society in general. This definition is specific enough to imply the holistic and philanthropic maxim of CSR. It is also broad enough to include activities or programs that companies engage in that do not directly yield income but bring visible and long-term benefits to both the companies and the recipients of the programs and activities such as youth and partner communities. With this definition programs such as scholarships and funds for research, advocacy programs for the environment, and livelihood programs can be considered as CSR. One of the earliest authors on CSR, Carroll (1979) was the first to propose the four categories of ordered layers of CSR—economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary—when he wrote that the social responsibility of businesses includes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society puts upon enterprises. Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield (1985) further defined these categories into: * Economic responsibilities showcase the principle that businesses have the primary responsibility to generate products and profits and fulfill the desires of their customers; * Legal responsibilities highlight the issue that economic responsibilities must be performed within the restriction of rules and regulations as mandated by the laws of the land; * Ethical responsibilities takes into consideration the codes, norms, and values that are not written into laws but are still followed implicitly by society; these responsibilities rise above the complexities of written laws and encompass activities that are vigorously carried out without any clear and defined statements made about them; * Discretionary or philanthropic responsibilities reflect the voluntary nature of actions that are not easy to establish and assess, but are still expected by society. These categories are still widely cited and frequently reproduced in management and CSR journals by researchers and authors on CSR. The reason for its lasting acknowledgement may be the simplicity of the model. Carrolls (1979) categories are logical and easy to understand. The author himself writes that these categories are merely guidelines or reminders that the motives or actions of businesses can be generally classified into any of the categories he presented. The arrangement and relative influence of each category was intended to imply the basic role each had in the progression of significance. When it first came out, Carrolls model reflected a point of view that was simultaneously retrospective and developmental. It was based on the assertion that historically businesses first emphasised only the economic aspects of their trade. The legal aspect came next, and the ethical and discretionary were only emphasised in recent years. Juholin (2004) suggests that companies practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) because of long-term profits that CSR brings to companies. Other reasons may also include the commitment of top management to the moral and ethical standards promoted by CSR, competitiveness of the market today, and the visionary skills of many business leaders that allows them to anticipate the needs of the future. Porter and Kramer (2006) agree that CSR provides long-term profits. The authors note that companies should practice CSR and integrate it in their core strategic plans to ensure long-term prosperity. This is because socially responsible activities can return goodwill for companies. On the other hand, activities that harm the environment or result in any disadvantage to stakeholders can only result in bad karma in the form of bad financial operation, low brand positioning, and, worse, a rift in the relationship between companies and their consumers and suppliers and even expensive litigations. Porter and Kramer (2006) write that corporations are not obligated to solve the problems of the world. They do not have resources to do this. But, a company that is well managed can have a greater impact than any other organisation or charity group when they do something good for society. CSR does not merely imply profitability for companies. Its results go beyond the costs or constraint of altruistic actions. CSR can be a source of market opportunity, improvement, and an edge over the competition (Porter Kramer, 2006). It also does not mean engaging in activities for the sake of doing what is socially required and expected of these companies based on legal and social laws, especially those on environmental issues. CSR implies taking action to go beyond these laws to minimize any harm towards and maximize benefits for all stakeholders in order to fulfill what society desires (Raynard Forstater, 2002). Warhurst (2001) identifies three major elements of CSR—product use, business practice, and distribution of profits. Product use entails the positive involvement of products from businesses that assist in the promotion of welfare and better quality of life for members of society. Business practice entails business governance that observes the rules and regulations and presents a high level of thrust towards welfare of the natural environment and equity for all generations and species. Distribution of profits entails equal distribution of profits across a varied range of sectors of society, with emphasis on local communities. Bowen (1953) also notes that CSR should not be seen as a primary solution to the many problems of society. CSR can only do so much, and it should only be seen by companies and society as a set of guidelines for businesses in the way they perform and carry on their operations within the context of a larger society and the many issues that abound within the social milieu that they operate in. A key concept of CSR is the idea of stakeholders. Stakeholders are all groups or individuals who have an impact on or are affected by the attainment of any organisations goals (Freeman, 1984). It can be said that stakeholders are any entity who have a big â€Å"stake† in what businesses do. The concept of stakeholders therefore goes beyond the shareholders, employees, and clients or customers of a company. It includes communities, public interest groups, social activist groups, environmental groups, and the media which, according to Freeman, author of the Stakeholder Theory, businesses are accountable to. Other researchers (Marcus, 1996; Munilla Miles, 2005) list specific stakeholders as: owners; customers; employees; local, regional and national communities; competitors; suppliers; social activists; public at large; creditors; non-government organisations (NGOs); and even the natural environment, which, although unable to state its opinions, has become a major stakeholder today because of the many laws promulgated to care for the Earth in a sustainable way. Hopkins (2003) writes that CSR primarily deals with ensuring that businesses treat stakeholders in an ethical or responsible way which means treating them in a manner considered suitable by members of any civilized society. The social context of this definition includes economic responsibility. Stakeholders can be both within businesses and outside it. This signifies the natural environment as a stakeholder. In a broader sense, the objective of social responsibility is to establish better and higher standards of living while maintaining the capability of businesses to make a profit. These two components of the objective of social responsibility are both done for the stakeholders within and outside companies. According to Freeman (1984) for successful transactions with stakeholders, businesses must accept the authority and procedures of various stakeholders. Stakeholders will thus have the freedom to communicate their concerns. Furthermore, to manage and develop a strong relationship with stakeholders, businesses must understand their concerns and develop programs that will address these concerns. Stakeholders have various ways to ensure that businesses fulfill societys expectations. Some may opt to organize rallies, some may opt for more peaceful negotiations, some may engage in joint activities such as seminars or tree-planting sessions or other awareness raising activities, and some may use the media to further disseminate their issues. For example, the environmental group Greenpeace printed leaflets and wrote articles against genetically modified food, which led some food manufacturing corporations to either stop production of certain products or to develop new, healthier items. Freeman (1984) points out that the term â€Å"stakeholder† first appeared in management literature in a 1963 international memorandum published by the Stanford Research Institute. The term then was strictly yet broadly defined as the peoples or groups who give their support to companies and without whom businesses would stop to surviving. The main idea in this initial context already shows a measure of the importance of stakeholders. In a way, this definition states that without the support of stakeholders, businesses would not be able to survive. Of course, the limitation of this definition lies in the fact that stakeholders here may mean only the groups that are influential for companies such as the shareholders or government groups or investors. Each business activity has a different group of stakeholders. This is because each individual in society is interested in and promotes a varied and widely different range of concerns (Freeman, 1984). Some are more interested in environmental issues, while others advocate employment benefits, and still others fight for education. One way to determine which stakeholder is relevant to which particular aspect of business is through the generation of a generic stakeholder map, which is a diagram of the various groups relevant to the whole organisation broken down into levels and subdivisions in order to divide big groups into small groups based on specific interests. Some experts, however, think that this mapping procedure does not encapsulate the complex linkages between businesses and the various individuals and groups in society. An approach of corporate social responsibility that centers on stakeholders emphasizes the strategic and effective management of relationships and promotion of what Freeman and McVea (2001) call shared interests. The stakeholder model also puts some emphasis on persuading businesses to rebuild or restore relationships with groups or organisations that they have been at odds with. A good stakeholder management program also involves open communication, negotiation, management, and motivation. The end result of all of these actions leads to the establishment of an attitude of partnership, mutual association and interdependence between businesses and stakeholders. All of these activities are held together by the values and ethical standards that businesses stand for. Freeman and McVea (2001) further emphasise that good stakeholder management promotes a business own company values. CSR does not mean catering to the interests of stakeholders while abandoning all other aspects of business. Rather it entails in-depth deliberations taking into account all factors of social expectations. A well-developed stakeholder management program also allows businesses to create approaches that can serve stakeholders even in the long run. Although some individuals may not be happy with short-term decisions and feel that their causes need more attention, a good stakeholder management program takes all things into considerations so that all stakeholders, not just a chosen few, continue to be firm supporters of businesses. Besides understanding stakeholders concerns, businesses must also look at the other components of CSR to determine the entire range of responsibilities that stakeholders expect them to embrace. When discussing and identifying these components of CSR, scholars and authors have been turning to the CSR pyramid presented by Carroll (1991). The CSR pyramid is arranged to follow the levels of Carrolls (1979) earlier work of the four categories of CSR. The arrangement is in accordance with the degrees of social expectations that have been connected with each category. It has been used to assess businesses performance in terms of quantity, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency in their implementation of CSR initiatives. Table 2.2.1 The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility Be a Good Corporate Citizen Philanthropic Responsibility Contribute Resources to the community; Improve Quality of Life Be Ethical Ethical Responsibility Obligation to do what is right, just and fair; Avoid Harm Obey the Law Legal Responsibility Law is Societys codification of right and wrong; Play the Rules of the game Be Profitable Economic Responsibility The Foundation on which all the others rest (Source : Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991, p. 39)) Obligations or responsibilities included in the pyramid have always existed in the business world. But the importance of philanthropic and ethical responsibilities has only received attention in recent years. Through this pyramid, Carroll (1991) hoped to show that a good CSR program can be broken down into well-defined components that make up a complete package. It can be seen as a framework for comprehending companies ever-evolving CSR activities. In addition, looking at each component can help leaders to distinguish and understand the various obligations of businesses that are in constant conflict with each other but which are mutually exclusive. Based on the expected activities for each level, economic responsibilities seem to be always in tension with the other responsibilities. Carroll (1991) also included the concept of stakeholders in this model, pointing out that taking their perspective into account would allow businesses to recognize the tension between all levels of the pyramid as realities of any organisation. This perspective can also allow businesses to see the pyramid as a united basis or framework of how firms will implement their decisions, actions, and programs. As can be seen, economic profit forms the foundation of the whole pyramid. Carroll (1991) acknowledges the basic fact that businesses were created historically as economic entities that are primarily concerned with making money and creating profit. Without this component, all other responsibilities become moot. Carroll states that the idea he was proposing was that CSR, to be acknowledged as a legitimate action for businesses, had to deal with the whole range of responsibilities these businesses had to answer for to society. Of course this would have to include the most basic responsibility—economic. The next level shows that businesses are obligated to follow the rules of law—various national and international laws—that socie Causes of Increased Corporate Social Responsibility Causes of Increased Corporate Social Responsibility Abstract Aim The main aim of this research was to establish the extent to which the increased priority of CSR is in actuality a reflection of companies acting to meet the interests of society or simply a means for generating profits in a marketing oriented way. In this regard, the research sought to explore CSR behaviour in depth and in turn tried to establish companies rationales for CSR behaviour in the UK food retail industry. Methods A mixed methodology with both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis were used in the research. Qualitative content analysis was used for analysing the contents of food retailers websites pertaining to CSR. Store Audits were conducted in order to identify the CSR practices and extent to which they are exercised by different food retailers. In depth formal interviews were conducted with key decision makers with the goal of obtaining information on CSR activities. Lastly, a questionnaire survey was used with the UK consumer population as the population of interest. Results The members of the UK Food Retail Industry showed that they have given paramount importance to CSR in order to somehow become a better neighbour to their customers, render them effective public services and at the same time contribute to the preservation and protection of the environment. The responses to the questions revealed a common rationale behind their CSR policies and ensured that the organisation established a good reputation amongst the members of the community, thereby enabling the latter to maintain a certain level of trust for the UK food retailers. Conclusion The study supported the fact highlighted by previous studies that companies have become more aware and mindful of their responsibilities, roles and rights towards the society. They were seen to have implemented activities, practices and guidelines in order to fulfill their legal, ethical, social and environmental roles and responsibilities towards stakeholders, employees, customers, and environment and society in general. However, it can also be realised that these policies contribute to the building of trust in the customers towards the organisations. Thus, as the trust is established, it is more likely that the customers will remain loyal to the organisation, thereby increasing their chances of generating profit. Chapter 1: Introduction For many years Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been associated with related terms like business ethics, corporate performance, corporate accountability, corporate responsibility and stake holder involvement. In recent years CSR has grown into a well-known collective expression. The growth of CSR has been a result of organisations realising their responsibility toward their stake holders in the context of business scandals (e.g. Enron) and a growing concern for environmental changes (e.g. global warming). The European Union defines CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (European Commission, 2002). According to Vernon and Mackenzie (2007), the question of whether companies should seek to do good by exercising CSR, rather than concentrate solely on wealth creation, is no longer interesting and in fact the focus today is on how well companies do good. Increasingly stake holders expect companies to take on public responsibility. Companies engage in CSR through diverse activities such as donating to charitable organisations (e.g. Ben and Jerrys), green activities (e.g. moves by major retailers to eliminate plastic bags and promote green bags) and by implementing environment friendly purchase and supply policies. A survey conducted by Research International, however, found that while CSR practices are commendable, they need to be viewed with caution as these activities are not sufficient in and of themselves (Social Funds, 2000). The scepticism about CSR activities is related to the growing trend for organisations to drift away from the hard issues and concentrate more on soft issues. The Research International survey revealed that despite ignoring crucial issues such as treatment of employees, and commitment to the local community, some companies portray themselves as socially responsible using charity and other CSR activities, which deal with soft issues (Social Funds, 2000). Sceptics also believe that CSR is often used purely as a marketing tool to improving business performance. In the context of CSR being rated as a priority by companies in the last few years (Cost Sector, 2009), this research aims to study the changing nature of CSR, with particular focus on an organisations motivation for engaging in socially responsible activities (whether it is a response to societys expectations or a strategic move by a company). By contributing to a deeper understanding of rationales, notions, risks and effects of CSR, the proposed research provides strategic insights on the subject. With findings based on both corporate and stake holder perspectives on the subject, this research aims to contribute to useful and interesting reading for both businesses and stake holders. The findings of this study are based on the UK food retail industry. Food retailers make a good context for study especially considering the several socially and environmentally responsible schemes that they are involved in and the significance of CSR asserted by industry standards. In this attempt Chapter Two provides the background and review of literature conducted in order to extensively analyse previous works published with regard to Corporate Social Responsibility and the manner by which it applies to the members of the UK food retail industry. Chapter Three discusses the different methods used in order to obtain data for the study to obtain relevant results. Chapter Four then presents the results obtained from the use of the different methodologies enumerated in the study. The results shall then be discussed in relation to the aim of the study in Chapter Five and conclusions would be provided by answering the research questions. Lastly in Chapter 6 we will give us an understanding of the scope and limitations of this study. Chapter 2: Background and Literature Review 2.1 Background of the study Societys preoccupation with the social responsibility of organisations has existed since at least the early 1930s and probably even before. Wells (2002) notes that it is perhaps the infamous Dodd-Berle correspondence contained within the Harvard Law Review Issue of 1931-32 that launched the debate on corporate social responsibility. The debate started when corporate law professor Adolf A. Berle Jr. published an article arguing for the imposition of legal control on management so that only their shareholders would benefit from their decisions (Berle, 1931). E.M. Dodd, another professor from Harvard, published an article that addressed the issue raised by Berle. He argues that besides focusing on the interests of the shareholders, managers must also take into consideration the concerns of the employees, consumers and the organisations stakeholders. Berle (1931) responded by saying that companies should â€Å"not abandon emphasis on the view that business corporations exist for the sol e purpose of making profits for their stockholders until such time as [one is] prepared to offer a clear and reasonably enforceable scheme of responsibilities to someone else† (Berle, 1932, p. 1365). Since the idea of corporate social responsibility has its roots in the legal community, several academic disciplines have followed the debate with little discussion occurring between and among them (Radin, 1999). More specifically, researchers in the field of business ethics have spent substantial effort in the past two decades to come up with a stakeholder theory that would eventually fall under corporate social responsibility, existing as a separate approach to management. The issue of corporate social responsibility was not discussed after the argument between Berle and Dodd. It resurfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s against the backdrop of the civil rights movement in America. This is due to the fact that the top agendas of politicians, public interest groups, individual citizens and corporations have been largely influenced by concerns about the environment, product safety, workplace health and safety, racial and sex discrimination, urban congestion, political corruption and technological advances. Apart from this, the increasing influence and power that organisations possessed during this period (this period being the 60s and 70s?) has eventually led to a widespread societal belief that large businesses have a duty towards ensuring the betterment of society (Banner, 1979). The power and influence of corporations, actual or perceived, and the impact of their economic, social and political actions on society in general, has led to a broad societal expectation that corporations be held accountable for their actions. Simply put, there is growing public sentiment that organisations must be responsible enough to weigh the impact of their decisions on the different parties involved. As a result, they must be able to eliminate, minimize or compensate for the harmful damages that they may inflict on society. The above mentioned justification is basically derived from a moral position that corporations are expected, and should, behave like any citizen in society. This expectation is also justified on the basis that corresponding responsibilities always accompany power. As Dodd (1932) asserts, â€Å"power over the lives of others tends to create on the part of those most worthy to exercise it a sense of responsibility.† Moreover, the increasing power of organisations has resulted in a societal expectation that corporations act proactively and at the same time, carry out a leadership role in order to provide solutions to problems that the world faces (CSR Survey, 2003). This means that given that organisations frequently have more resources than governments, they should give something back to the society. In the same manner, they are also called to allocate and offer some of their resources to carry out good works and help the less fortunate sectors of society. Overall, this CSR goal is justified as follows: initially, a societal need is identified. For instance, areas such as education, healthcare, low-income housing or the arts may require funding that cannot be generated privately or that government is unable to provide to enable these institutions to continue making goods or services available or even to exist. Second, corporations are identified as capable of filling the gap by providing either funds or infrastructure to address the need. In other words, an appeal to organisations is made because they frequently have the capacity, in accordance with their size and reach, to act as agents of â€Å"social progress† (Kahn, 1997). As repeatedly mentioned earlier, corporate social responsibility has been required of companies that have both, actual or perceived power and influence. This is why multinational corporations that operate parts of the globe where people fear the effects and consequences of Globalisation are expected to perform such duties. This, according to Zinkin (2004) is usually brought about by the fact that these corporations are usually seen as enemies rather than friends. Thus, to regain the trust and confidence of the people, the company must be able to make their social responsibility known as this is said to give them legitimacy to operate in a given country (Zinkins, 2004). 2.2 Literature Review In order to gain a better understanding of the concepts and principles of CSR, the review of literature is divided into the following sections: 1. Corporate Social Responsibility: Definitions and History, 2. Corporate Social Responsibility and the UK Food Retail Industry, and 3. Summary 2.2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility: Definitions and History Globalisation, the increasing influence of companies including small and medium enterprises, a change in the position and opinion of governments, and a paradigm shift in working with and appreciating the importance of building solid relations with stakeholders- are all factors that have contributed to changing the dynamics of the relationship between businesses and society. Businesses have always been mindful of their responsibilities towards society. The concept of companies sharing their resources and influence with other groups has been repeatedly spoken about for centuries (Bowe, 1953). Nowadays, companies have become more aware and mindful of their responsibilities, roles and rights towards the society. They are seen to have implemented activities, practices and guidelines in order to fulfill their legal, ethical, social and environmental responsibilities to stakeholders, which include shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and the environment and society in general. These actions have been given many terms, including: (1) Corporate Responsibility or CR, (2) Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility or CSER, (3) Corporate Citizenship, (4) Corporate Accountability, and lastly, (5) Socially Responsible Business (SRB) (Raynard Forstater, 2002). However, the most famous terminology would have to be Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR. CSR first began to be written about by academics in the 20th century. The term Corporate Social Responsibility and the modern view on CSR are largely attributed to Howard Bowen, who is considered by many scholars, especially Carroll, as the father of CSR. Bowen conceived CSR as an integral part of a larger vision of a better American society with a robust and socially responsible business sector. Before Bowen wrote his book in 1953, CSR was not a generally accepted practice among businesses in the United States. Carroll (1991) writes that in the early years, businesses believed that their only obligation was to their shareholders and their only function was the quest of financial improvement in order to provide the greatest financial return to their shareholders. The errors of this way of thinking soon became apparent. For one, businesses still had to work within laws set down by governments. In the 1960s, groups advocating social issues pushed for a more extensive concept of responsibilities for businesses. In the 1970s, various organisations in charge of the social issues pushed by the activist groups were created in the U.S. Some of these organisations were the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). These governmental organisations allowed the establishment of national public policy that now acknowledged the legality of environmen tal issues. The new policies forced businesses to re-examine their own strategies and to learn how to develop a balance between making a profit and the legal and ethical responsibilities placed on them by a widening range of stakeholders. For Bowen (1953), businesses become prominent in society because society needs the products and services provided by these companies. This grants businesses vital decision-making power in the way they affect the lives of many people. Therefore, for a balanced business-society relationship to continue, Bowen (1953) asks what responsibilities society can reasonably expect businessmen to assume. The answer to this question, Bowen states, is corporate social responsibility. He defines CSR as a social obligation that necessitates businessmen to engage in policies, formulate decisions, and implement actions that are considered desirable when connected with the objectives and values of society. He took a broad view when defining what business responsibilities include—responsiveness, stewardship, social audit, corporate citizenship and rudimentary stakeholder theory. Bowens concept of a mutual relationship between business and society is echoed by Porter and Kramer (2006), who point out that the value of CSR lies in the values companies share with societies they exist in. Businesses operate in social contexts and societies need the products and services that businesses provide, thus there is a mutual need for each entity. CSR, therefore, makes it possible to promote a collaborative relationship between business and society. Many have tried to create a definition of corporate social responsibility that encompasses its functions and the range of responsibilities it entails. One of the most comprehensive is that of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2007), which defines CSR as the long-lasting commitment that businesses create which compels them to behave in an ethical manner and to add to the development of the economy while helping improve the quality of life of their employees and their families in addition to the lives of those in the local communities and society in general. This definition is specific enough to imply the holistic and philanthropic maxim of CSR. It is also broad enough to include activities or programs that companies engage in that do not directly yield income but bring visible and long-term benefits to both the companies and the recipients of the programs and activities such as youth and partner communities. With this definition programs such as scholarships and funds for research, advocacy programs for the environment, and livelihood programs can be considered as CSR. One of the earliest authors on CSR, Carroll (1979) was the first to propose the four categories of ordered layers of CSR—economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary—when he wrote that the social responsibility of businesses includes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society puts upon enterprises. Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield (1985) further defined these categories into: * Economic responsibilities showcase the principle that businesses have the primary responsibility to generate products and profits and fulfill the desires of their customers; * Legal responsibilities highlight the issue that economic responsibilities must be performed within the restriction of rules and regulations as mandated by the laws of the land; * Ethical responsibilities takes into consideration the codes, norms, and values that are not written into laws but are still followed implicitly by society; these responsibilities rise above the complexities of written laws and encompass activities that are vigorously carried out without any clear and defined statements made about them; * Discretionary or philanthropic responsibilities reflect the voluntary nature of actions that are not easy to establish and assess, but are still expected by society. These categories are still widely cited and frequently reproduced in management and CSR journals by researchers and authors on CSR. The reason for its lasting acknowledgement may be the simplicity of the model. Carrolls (1979) categories are logical and easy to understand. The author himself writes that these categories are merely guidelines or reminders that the motives or actions of businesses can be generally classified into any of the categories he presented. The arrangement and relative influence of each category was intended to imply the basic role each had in the progression of significance. When it first came out, Carrolls model reflected a point of view that was simultaneously retrospective and developmental. It was based on the assertion that historically businesses first emphasised only the economic aspects of their trade. The legal aspect came next, and the ethical and discretionary were only emphasised in recent years. Juholin (2004) suggests that companies practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) because of long-term profits that CSR brings to companies. Other reasons may also include the commitment of top management to the moral and ethical standards promoted by CSR, competitiveness of the market today, and the visionary skills of many business leaders that allows them to anticipate the needs of the future. Porter and Kramer (2006) agree that CSR provides long-term profits. The authors note that companies should practice CSR and integrate it in their core strategic plans to ensure long-term prosperity. This is because socially responsible activities can return goodwill for companies. On the other hand, activities that harm the environment or result in any disadvantage to stakeholders can only result in bad karma in the form of bad financial operation, low brand positioning, and, worse, a rift in the relationship between companies and their consumers and suppliers and even expensive litigations. Porter and Kramer (2006) write that corporations are not obligated to solve the problems of the world. They do not have resources to do this. But, a company that is well managed can have a greater impact than any other organisation or charity group when they do something good for society. CSR does not merely imply profitability for companies. Its results go beyond the costs or constraint of altruistic actions. CSR can be a source of market opportunity, improvement, and an edge over the competition (Porter Kramer, 2006). It also does not mean engaging in activities for the sake of doing what is socially required and expected of these companies based on legal and social laws, especially those on environmental issues. CSR implies taking action to go beyond these laws to minimize any harm towards and maximize benefits for all stakeholders in order to fulfill what society desires (Raynard Forstater, 2002). Warhurst (2001) identifies three major elements of CSR—product use, business practice, and distribution of profits. Product use entails the positive involvement of products from businesses that assist in the promotion of welfare and better quality of life for members of society. Business practice entails business governance that observes the rules and regulations and presents a high level of thrust towards welfare of the natural environment and equity for all generations and species. Distribution of profits entails equal distribution of profits across a varied range of sectors of society, with emphasis on local communities. Bowen (1953) also notes that CSR should not be seen as a primary solution to the many problems of society. CSR can only do so much, and it should only be seen by companies and society as a set of guidelines for businesses in the way they perform and carry on their operations within the context of a larger society and the many issues that abound within the social milieu that they operate in. A key concept of CSR is the idea of stakeholders. Stakeholders are all groups or individuals who have an impact on or are affected by the attainment of any organisations goals (Freeman, 1984). It can be said that stakeholders are any entity who have a big â€Å"stake† in what businesses do. The concept of stakeholders therefore goes beyond the shareholders, employees, and clients or customers of a company. It includes communities, public interest groups, social activist groups, environmental groups, and the media which, according to Freeman, author of the Stakeholder Theory, businesses are accountable to. Other researchers (Marcus, 1996; Munilla Miles, 2005) list specific stakeholders as: owners; customers; employees; local, regional and national communities; competitors; suppliers; social activists; public at large; creditors; non-government organisations (NGOs); and even the natural environment, which, although unable to state its opinions, has become a major stakeholder today because of the many laws promulgated to care for the Earth in a sustainable way. Hopkins (2003) writes that CSR primarily deals with ensuring that businesses treat stakeholders in an ethical or responsible way which means treating them in a manner considered suitable by members of any civilized society. The social context of this definition includes economic responsibility. Stakeholders can be both within businesses and outside it. This signifies the natural environment as a stakeholder. In a broader sense, the objective of social responsibility is to establish better and higher standards of living while maintaining the capability of businesses to make a profit. These two components of the objective of social responsibility are both done for the stakeholders within and outside companies. According to Freeman (1984) for successful transactions with stakeholders, businesses must accept the authority and procedures of various stakeholders. Stakeholders will thus have the freedom to communicate their concerns. Furthermore, to manage and develop a strong relationship with stakeholders, businesses must understand their concerns and develop programs that will address these concerns. Stakeholders have various ways to ensure that businesses fulfill societys expectations. Some may opt to organize rallies, some may opt for more peaceful negotiations, some may engage in joint activities such as seminars or tree-planting sessions or other awareness raising activities, and some may use the media to further disseminate their issues. For example, the environmental group Greenpeace printed leaflets and wrote articles against genetically modified food, which led some food manufacturing corporations to either stop production of certain products or to develop new, healthier items. Freeman (1984) points out that the term â€Å"stakeholder† first appeared in management literature in a 1963 international memorandum published by the Stanford Research Institute. The term then was strictly yet broadly defined as the peoples or groups who give their support to companies and without whom businesses would stop to surviving. The main idea in this initial context already shows a measure of the importance of stakeholders. In a way, this definition states that without the support of stakeholders, businesses would not be able to survive. Of course, the limitation of this definition lies in the fact that stakeholders here may mean only the groups that are influential for companies such as the shareholders or government groups or investors. Each business activity has a different group of stakeholders. This is because each individual in society is interested in and promotes a varied and widely different range of concerns (Freeman, 1984). Some are more interested in environmental issues, while others advocate employment benefits, and still others fight for education. One way to determine which stakeholder is relevant to which particular aspect of business is through the generation of a generic stakeholder map, which is a diagram of the various groups relevant to the whole organisation broken down into levels and subdivisions in order to divide big groups into small groups based on specific interests. Some experts, however, think that this mapping procedure does not encapsulate the complex linkages between businesses and the various individuals and groups in society. An approach of corporate social responsibility that centers on stakeholders emphasizes the strategic and effective management of relationships and promotion of what Freeman and McVea (2001) call shared interests. The stakeholder model also puts some emphasis on persuading businesses to rebuild or restore relationships with groups or organisations that they have been at odds with. A good stakeholder management program also involves open communication, negotiation, management, and motivation. The end result of all of these actions leads to the establishment of an attitude of partnership, mutual association and interdependence between businesses and stakeholders. All of these activities are held together by the values and ethical standards that businesses stand for. Freeman and McVea (2001) further emphasise that good stakeholder management promotes a business own company values. CSR does not mean catering to the interests of stakeholders while abandoning all other aspects of business. Rather it entails in-depth deliberations taking into account all factors of social expectations. A well-developed stakeholder management program also allows businesses to create approaches that can serve stakeholders even in the long run. Although some individuals may not be happy with short-term decisions and feel that their causes need more attention, a good stakeholder management program takes all things into considerations so that all stakeholders, not just a chosen few, continue to be firm supporters of businesses. Besides understanding stakeholders concerns, businesses must also look at the other components of CSR to determine the entire range of responsibilities that stakeholders expect them to embrace. When discussing and identifying these components of CSR, scholars and authors have been turning to the CSR pyramid presented by Carroll (1991). The CSR pyramid is arranged to follow the levels of Carrolls (1979) earlier work of the four categories of CSR. The arrangement is in accordance with the degrees of social expectations that have been connected with each category. It has been used to assess businesses performance in terms of quantity, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency in their implementation of CSR initiatives. Table 2.2.1 The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility Be a Good Corporate Citizen Philanthropic Responsibility Contribute Resources to the community; Improve Quality of Life Be Ethical Ethical Responsibility Obligation to do what is right, just and fair; Avoid Harm Obey the Law Legal Responsibility Law is Societys codification of right and wrong; Play the Rules of the game Be Profitable Economic Responsibility The Foundation on which all the others rest (Source : Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991, p. 39)) Obligations or responsibilities included in the pyramid have always existed in the business world. But the importance of philanthropic and ethical responsibilities has only received attention in recent years. Through this pyramid, Carroll (1991) hoped to show that a good CSR program can be broken down into well-defined components that make up a complete package. It can be seen as a framework for comprehending companies ever-evolving CSR activities. In addition, looking at each component can help leaders to distinguish and understand the various obligations of businesses that are in constant conflict with each other but which are mutually exclusive. Based on the expected activities for each level, economic responsibilities seem to be always in tension with the other responsibilities. Carroll (1991) also included the concept of stakeholders in this model, pointing out that taking their perspective into account would allow businesses to recognize the tension between all levels of the pyramid as realities of any organisation. This perspective can also allow businesses to see the pyramid as a united basis or framework of how firms will implement their decisions, actions, and programs. As can be seen, economic profit forms the foundation of the whole pyramid. Carroll (1991) acknowledges the basic fact that businesses were created historically as economic entities that are primarily concerned with making money and creating profit. Without this component, all other responsibilities become moot. Carroll states that the idea he was proposing was that CSR, to be acknowledged as a legitimate action for businesses, had to deal with the whole range of responsibilities these businesses had to answer for to society. Of course this would have to include the most basic responsibility—economic. The next level shows that businesses are obligated to follow the rules of law—various national and international laws—that socie

Digicams :: Cameras Technology Papers

Digicams Buying a technical product, which you don’t know very well about it, could be one of the unwise things that you’ve ever done. I’ve done that kind of stupid thing which was buying my first digital camera. Four years ago, I wanted to replace my film camera with a digital camera so I bought an Argus digital camera which was a bad one. I don’t mean that Argus cameras cannot take nice pictures, but they cannot compete to the other big brand cameras like Canon, Nikon, Konica, Olympus, or Kodak. When I bought the Argus digital camera, I should have spent a little more money to get one of those good cameras than I could afford. I admit that it was my stingy behavior, but another reason I bought that camera was the salesman’s suggestion from the store. As I already admitted that it was my fault, I didn’t blame on him, and I should have noticed that he was not a professional. I should have got sufficient information about the digital camera from some p rofessional in that field before I decided to purchase. After I got a good lesson with my first digital camera, I carefully looked at the digital camera reviews websites before I bought my second one. There are many review websites for digital camera, and some online stores have their own customer reviews link. Finally, I think I found out some good digital camera review websites which are http://www.steves-digicams.com, http://www.dcresource.com and http://www.cnet.com. As I said before, there are many good digital camera review websites, but I believe those three websites are more up to date and more detail in technical explanations and other related links. Also, I’d like to compare those three sites and explain which one is the best one. First I’d like to describe about â€Å"Steve-digicams† site, which was founded by Steve in early 1997. Steve has over 30 years experience in photography, and his reviews are easy to understand regardless of reader’s computer or photography experience. Steve’s site has reviews on almost every latest model digital camera. There are several contents in Steve’s site. The main contents are â€Å"Camera Reviews†, â€Å"Printer Reviews†, â€Å"Accessory Reviews†, â€Å"Buyer’s Guide†, â€Å"The Best Cameras†, â€Å"Digicam Software† and â€Å"Users’ web pages†. Even though there are several links (contents) without any graphic or pictures in Steve’s homepage, it is still very simple and easy to navigate. In order to read the review for the camera you want, you just have to click on the link â€Å"Digital Camera Reviews† and choose the cameras based on models from drop down menu or resolutions from main menu box.

Iraq War Is Both Necessary and Justified Essay -- Political Politics

Iraq War Is Both Necessary and Justified This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word â€Å"sacrifice† means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were â€Å"sacrificed† as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S. military bases and not engage in combat in Iraq. Secondly, in World War II over 405,000 American military personnel had been killed, and that happens to constitute over 400 times the sacrifice that our nation has made in the combined Afghan/Iraq Wars. And besides that horrendous astronomical figure over 671,000 American soldiers were wounded during WWII. I agree with the anti-war pundits that each American life should be valued, but when you analyze â€Å"sacrifice† in its true context, look to the past to equate the true cost of freedom. The World Trade Center twin-towers catastrophe was very comparable to Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in fact more people died on September 11th on U.S. soil than were bombed and killed at Pearl Harbor. Now here’s where the liberal mindset suddenly turns philosophical. â€Å"The Iraq War should not be fought and it cannot be validly compared to WWII,† they will argue. President Bush does not like or want war, but sometimes war is the only viable measure to take. I stro... ... Palestinian suicide/homicide bomber’s family $30,000 of â€Å"oil for food money† just to ensure that terrorism in the Middle East would thrive and continue. The same attitude that prevailed among the demented German Fascists exists among the radical Islamic Fascists: â€Å"Blame it all on the Jews!† The United States of America protects all of the free world including anti-war protestors in Canada, Europe and even here in America. The USA is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, but our nation can only continue being great through strength, economic prosperity, free enterprise and courage to act, to demonstrate leadership and to defend what is right, what is just and what is necessary. And there’s one final thing to say to all anti-war liberals. How much money is Al Qaeda donating to the hurricance victims? Get on the right side of the fence and stay there.

Homeless Assistance :: essays research papers fc

a. Issue: Should the homeless assistance program in Sacramento be reformed to give more money to the homeless while allowing them to apply to the program more than once? b. Facts: Currently in Sacramento, the homeless can apply for homeless assistance only once in their lifetime except for certain extenuating situations. The current program is a success. The amount of people in the program living below the poverty line has fallen 21% in the last seven years. Since 2000, the amount of families applying for the program has dropped 69%. Experts claim the fall in numbers comes from the fact that people can't apply more than once. In 1996, the homeless were allowed to apply for assistance more than once in their lifetime, but this was changed as the experts thought there were too many abuses. Now the only time one can get assistance more than once is if the family finds itself homeless again because of domestic violence, the sudden inhabitability of their home, or certain physical or mental illnesses. While these exceptions are good and cover a good deal, they don't get most of the homeless. The program also comes with certain snags. One of these is that the rent o f the housing the assistance goes to must be less than 80% of the maximum amount CalWORKS gives for a family of the same size. The amount of money families have to pay after the assistance to keep the housing usually comes out to about 2/3 of the salary. With the rising housing prices, analysts predict that it is going to be increasingly harder for the homeless to get housing, first time or not. c. Arguments: This issue pretty much breaks down into two sides. Those who wish to change the system (the homeless and their advocates) versus those who defend the status quo (the government). The government's side is simple. This program is a success right now and many people are getting out of poverty. The state also recognizes that California is in a massive debt. Funding for the program, while possible, is not fiscally responsible. As for not allowing the homeless to apply for assistance multiple times, the government holds that there were too many abuses. I could not find any numbers as to how many abuses there have been. Apparently the number was rather high. In the government's eyes, this program is a success and doesn't need to be tampered with.

Observing Toddlers Essay

Introduction   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   There are a number of places where toddlers could be observed unobtrusively—at the park, the playground, the mall, and the daycare center. For the purpose of this study, however, I chose to go to the park and observe parents and their toddlers play together. This way, I could easily observe unobtrusively as people would think I was simply there to write or to write down my thoughts.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Another benefit that the park has to offer is the lack of formal structures and relationships such as those found at daycare centers. At the park, parents and toddlers could interact easily and in a relax manner. That way, the true nature of the relationship between the parents and the toddlers will be easily observed and analyzed and the understanding of the interactions between parents and children will be better understood. This paper then seeks to look at such a relationship by presenting direct observations from families and toddlers that visit the park in our community. I had a small notebook with me and it is where I wrote down my observations, as well as the communication that went on between the parents and the children.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     The toddlers that I observed were approximately between 16 to 30 months old and appeared to be pampered by care by their parents. One the toddlers belong to an Asian-American racial stock while the other one to an American family. Although the parents brought strollers with them, the toddlers were walking and occasionally carried by their parents. Both of the families of the toddlers seem to belong to the middle class. Notably, the second toddler belongs to a mother without a father. Although the author could not exactly know whether she is a single parent or not, at least based on the observation at the park, the mother does not have any other company in visiting the park.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Both toddlers appear to be enamored with their surroundings. They do notice the colors in the park and usually exclaim in delight when they see a butterfly or a bird. Apparently, they are already starting to recognize some of the features of the environment and their understanding of what they are is already being formed in the minds of the young kids. Toddler 1 The first toddler I observed is male. He displayed curiosity in his surroundings. While they were walking in the park, to the way where the family will sit down for an afternoon snack, the toddler was picking up sticks and leaves on the ground. He raised them to his eyes and offered them to his parents. The mother accepted the offer from the toddler and said that it was a leaf. She explained further that the leaf grows on the branch, which the toddler dutifully picked up and offered to her mother again. When the mother pronounced â€Å"leaf† and â€Å"branch†, the toddler also spoke up and attempted to pronounce the same words. A child is very much curious and interested in his surroundings. As part of his cognitive development, he notices the shapes, colors, and different sensations and wonders he encounter in his world. Even at such a young age, he is also being initiated into the process of socialization where he learns the views of his parents and of the larger society where he is located (Turner, 1991). The child, according to Piaget’s theory actively uses his senses to explore his environment and learn about them. Through the use of his senses, he is able to discern relationships among the actions he take and the behavior of the objects that he is viewing (Turner, 1991). Both the component of nature and nurture are at work in this seemingly simple process that the child is going through. He uses his eyes, his ears, his nose, and his whole body to discover the world and learn how it works. His efforts, because they are yet insufficient, are supplemented by his parents, more particularly by his mother, who tells him the names of objects and how they are being referred to in the world. Through the explanation of the mother about the nature of the relationship between leaves and branches, the child is then able to look at the relationship of different objects in his environment albeit in an incomplete fashion. The explanation of the mother regarding the relationship of leaves and branches may not be sufficient for the child to understand the relationship because most of the knowledge of a child advances through his actions and his interpretation about the consequences of the actions he make (Franz & White, 1985). Notably, the toddler was now engaging in eye-to-eye contact with his parents and occasionally asks them for what he wants. His father brought out a ball that the toddler apparently loved playing with. The father and the child started playing with the ball—they played catch, and sometimes they would race together to get the ball first. The toddler was delighted with such play with his father. Although this is the case, the child would also look at his mother and he asked her to come and join them. This is consistent with the theory of Erikson, which holds that the child’s relationship with his mother is perhaps the most important one during this stage of development (Franz & White, 1985). The child continued to play with the ball and when he saw other children in the park, he also went to them and offered to play the ball with them. Apparently, toddler one has good socialization skills to the point that he can mingle with other kids even when his parents are around. This points to the good relationship that the child is enjoying with his parents. Both his parents encouraged him to play with other children and watched him with other kids. True enough, when the child has strong relationships with his parents, he tends to be more socially responsive and socially amiable. In accordance with Psychosocial theorists, the child is displaying good emotional and social skills because his own relationship with his parents are also good and secure. Otherwise, he might become a recluse and refuse the company of people (Charlesworth, 2003). When Toddler one was playing ball with another child, there was an instance in which the other child managed to grab the ball more quickly than toddler one, so what he did was to forcibly claim the ball from his playmate and withheld it from the latter. Through this, the other child looked as if he was about to cry. It is at this moment that the mother of Toddler one intervened. The mother reasoned out firmly with the toddler in regards to sharing toys so that others would also learn how to share. The tone of the mother appeared to be negotiating instead of imposing. This display of authority on the part of the mother is remarkable and shows the secure connection between her and the child (Charlesworth, 2003). Toddler Two When I felt that I have sufficiently observed toddler one, I decided to turn my attention to another toddler playing with a dog not very far from the first toddler. The only companion of the toddler in the park is his mother and their Labrador. I had the impression, although this is difficult to verify, that the mother was a single parent. The mother was silently looking after her child who was playing with the Labrador. Apart from the toy truck and the Frisbee that the child had, there were no other toys that the mother had for the child. The mother appeared to be preoccupied with her own thoughts. When toddler was not busy with his toy truck, he would play with the Frisbee and the dogs with the strength and the capability that he has. The dog seems to act as a guard to the toddler. He does not socialize with other kids very much and he appears content to play by himself. The toddler, it seems is spending most of the time by himself. Although at first glance, this may seem to be a display of autonomy, yet in closer examination of the child, he does not enjoy the benefits that interaction with other kids and with his parent brings. These circumstances will therefore bring forth negative consequences in the development of the social skills of the child and he might find it difficult to relate with other people when he grows up (Keenan, 2002). When the child attempts to play farther from his mother, the latter would come after him and tell him not to move around too much. The mother actually uses her authority over the child to forbid him from going somewhere else. Apparently, the mother wants to keep the child in her sight most of the time. This kind of attitude might breed negative feelings in the child and will contribute to the insecurity of their relationship. Since the relationship of the child with his mother is of utmost importance (Charlesworth, 2003), then his cognitive, emotional and social development will suffer as a consequence. The child also develops a kind of mistrust in the outside world and he will not view the outside world as a safe place. Instead, he might develop the attitude that he always needs his mother to look after him. Erikson warned against this over-protectiveness of parents as it prohibits children to explore and become curious of their environment. Hence, instead of developing self-confidence and self-esteem, toddler two will instead feel shame and doubt (Franz & White, 1985). Toddler two cried when his mother forbade him to wander into the park. When the child cried, the mother responded by being firmer and she almost shouted to toddler two to stop. Instead of stopping, however, toddler cried even louder and displayed tantrums. At this time, the mother punished toddler two by spanking him three times. After several minutes, toddler two stopped crying and remained where he was instead. This display of authority may become inimical to the overall development of the child over the long run as the initiative and the natural curiosity of the child will be dampened and what he will remember most will be the fear associated with the parent’s discipline (Charlesworth, 2003). Toddler two recovered from the spanking after several minutes by turning his attention to the dog and his Frisbee. By distracting himself, he forgot about the incident and started to enjoy himself again. His mother, however, still issued a warning for him â€Å"not to move out of her sight.† According to Erikson, if the urge of the child to explore is removed, then the result would be a lower level of self-esteem on the part of the child (Franz & White, 1985). Toddler two is very much attached to her mother, however, he is not sufficiently developing autonomy. Through the reprimands and the stern warnings of his mother, he becomes dependent on his mother and unable to explore his environment and his surroundings. Over the course of time as he discovers the world further, he may not have sufficient curiosity and initiative to move away from the familiar and instead, he would keep in sight of whoever is looking after him. Conclusion   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Observing the two toddlers was a good experience for me. It was as if the concepts and theories discussed by Piaget and Erikson were coming to life. Indeed the role of the parents is very crucial in ensuring that a child receives the appropriate socialization and training even while he is young. The strength of the attachment of a child with his parents is very important for him to develop the necessary skills for socialization and in relating with others in his environment. If the relationship of a child with his parents is good as demonstrated by the first toddler I observed, then the child will greatly benefit from it. If, however, the nature of the relationship borders on the dysfunctional, then the socialization skills of the child will be negatively affected. As he grows up, he will have struggles in relating with different kinds of people in his environment.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   By observing toddlers, numerous lessons can be gleaned and the nature of the relationship between child and parents will be assessed. Accordingly, intervention strategies could be arrived at so that the child will not suffer needlessly. Furthermore, parents, and everyone dealing with children, should be sensitive to the different levels of development of the child as demonstrated by Piaget and Erikson. By doing so, perhaps the manner of bringing up of children will be better and over the long run, the society will become a better one because of the good rearing of the children. Reference Charlesworth, R. (2003). Understanding Child Development: For Adults Who Work With Young Children. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning. Franz, C. E. & White, K. M. (1985). Individuation and attachment in personality development: Extending Erikson’s theory. Journal of Personality, 53 (2), 224-256. Keenan, T. (2002). An Introduction to Child Development. London: Sage Publications. Turner, P. J. (1991). Relations between Attachment, Gender, and Behavior with Peers in Preschool. Child Development, 62 (6), 1475-1488.