A Critical Analysis of Company Q’s Social Responsibility Essay

come upThis essay is a critical epitome of the behaviors that alliance Q has demonstrated with regard to neighborly responsibleness. In essence, connection Qs behaviors, magic spell reasonable reactions to maintain fiscal viability and invalidate contribution to betrothee malfeasance, actually demonstrate a profound solicitude that results in a negative public image that bequeath end up costing it more than in the long term. I exit press solutions that appropriate provide a cost savings while tutelage residential district Q from making further humiliating errors.A Critical Analysis of Comp either Qs Social ResponsibilityUnfortunately, confederacy Q has not made wise decisions as it relates to social responsibility. There argon reports that the society 1) chose to loaded much-needed pabulum market rememberings in economically depressed (read minority-occupied) parts of town, 2.) chose to start go health-conscious aliment items only later it could posit t he heightsest-margin products it could find and 3) ashamedly refused to provide day-old fodder for thought to the topical anesthetic intellectual nourishment aver under the auspices that it was relate that its employees would splay the food instead of donating it. The goal of this compend is not only to highlight this amusing behavior and reasoning but besides to offer solutions that ar conducive to showdown social-responsibility concerns and maintaining financial viability. With any hope, friendship Q exit heed the counsel and institute spry changes.Scenario 1The news recently account the shuttering of two of Company Qs grocery stores in nearness A and Neighborhood B. Although the attach to gave no public controversy about the nature of these closings, public financial disclosures indicate the rationale The stores were not serviceable. Of course, in a free-market economy, companies have the option to close unprofitable stores. But in increment to beingness a free market, we are as well an economy that operates on high social principlesor, at the very least, weshould be. Company Q apparently missed this memorandum when it was send 30 years ago. With these stores removed from two neighborhoods, where are the residents of those neighborhoods supposed to support? And with the remotion of the stores, what impetus do the few other(a)wise grocers have to keep prices reasonable for heap of that socio-economic level?Scenario 1 proclamationI clear that a possible refuter to any of the aforementi match littled questions is, If the residents are not sponsorping there and putting currency into the store, why would we be expected to outride open? I would offer that such a rebuttal is wrongheaded. Perhaps a founder question may be, What are we doing to cause residents to shop elsewhere or to not spend more money with us? Does Company Q offer the food choices these residents want? Is the layout of your stores conducive to these residents? Are the prices to a fault high? Do the staff you employ in these stores look like the residents who shop there? If the answer is no to any of these questions, we will have unlocked one of some(prenominal) possible reasons why the store is unprofitable. It is then Company Qs responsibility to address these issues instead of packing up shop and moving to the more overflowing areas of town, where they are not concerned that a jar of pickles may cost $40.Scenario 2With a weight epidemic destruction the country, Company Q made its decision to offer health-conscious food fare only after it could find the foods that provided the highest margin of profit for it. That is in all likelihood why there is a famine of health-food options in its store, and probably why the prices are nearly twice those of its competitors. This message translates to the community as If Company X stool profit obscenely from offer health-food options to its consumers, it will then be concerned with offering h ealthy options. Otherwise, let the American fleshiness epidemic rage on unchainednot our problemScenario 2 fortitudeThe above message is a neaten problem, and it does not have to be. It is possible for Company Q to offer plenty of health-food options while take over making a profit, though the profit may not be as obscene as the one it is presently making. Company Q can engage in more impactful negotiations with its suppliers or can shop the market for health-food competitors who wouldbe willing to generate its sizable consumer base with its food. In our anterior reference to store closings, Company Q could also offer more health-food options in more of its stores as opposed to select ones. Or Company Q could offer the same food products but initially make less of a profit on it by offering discounts on it initially as a sort of enticement to customers to befit interested and promote the food to their vane of friends and family. This possibility could theoretically create c hange magnitude demand for the healthy food and allow more profitability for the company in the long run. Company profitability and come across social-responsibility obligations as it relates to our countrys obesity epidemic need not be at variance.Scenario 3A local food bankone that serves the poverty-strickenrequested the boon of day-old food from Company Q, but Company Q responded that it was concerned that it would lose revenue because it was concerned that its employees would soak the food instead of donating it.Scenario 3ResolutionThis response is insulting to its own employees and to the food bank. If Company Q is concerned that its employees are miscreants, the companys bigger concern should be the integrity of its employee-verification process. There are many solutions available have the food-bank employees collect the food themselves, designate a specific employee to carry off food donations, make a tax-deductible donation in the amount of the destroyed food instead. Almost any response is better than what Company Q provided.ConclusionThere is no question that every company has a right to pursue profits, and I recognize that Company Q is ultimately attempting to do in force(p) that. However, it is imperative that Company Q realize that it has a responsibility to contribute to society something other than products and services. Consumers are interested in doing dividing run with forward-thinking companies who recognize their responsibility in move the soul of our society forward. With the counsel provided, Company Q can bring itself in line with many other companies in being truly customer centric.