Natural Gardens Corporate Social Performance

New Balance is privately owned company, which is the second largest footwear manufacture in the United States and the fourth largest footwear manufacture in the world with annual sales in 2008 of $1.61 billion (Veleva, 2010).

I think Starbucks is so concerned with social responsibility in its overall corporate strategy because of its founder Howard Schultz. After reading about Howard Shultz it is clear to me that one of the reasons this company does so well is because of the high standards he holds himself and his company to. As a young boy he witnessed what his father had to go through in order to put food on the table for his family. He saw the struggles his dad had to endure while working for a company that did not put their employees first. (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell pg 400) It was for this reason that he has such a strong ethical position. Howard is a long-time advocate for increased awareness in business ethics. (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell pg 398). He gave a speech at Notre Dame in 2007 and spoke to the students about the importance of balancing profitability and social consciousness. (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell pg 398) It seems apparent that Howard is very concerned about the well-being of the employees, customers, environment and the community as a whole. According to Starbucks Website (2016) the core values and mission statement is as follows: “With our partners, our coffee and our customers at our core, we live these values” (Starbucks website 2016)

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Sprouts intertwine together in the form of their unique market and customer services. They offer a wide range of natural or organic products, special health and beauty items that are difficult to find anywhere else and high-quality produce. They typically run sells of the latter that brings their price well below normal market prices offered anywhere else and have quarterly sales on their frozen and vitamins, the items that usually cost the highest, that put them at a more affordable level to those who normally cannot purcahse for them. They are intentional in their pursuit to not just to maintain their quality of products; Sprouts managers carefully select

As a consumer, do you consider a corporation’s reputation before consuming their product? How often do you choose a product based on the corporation’s values and social responsibility? A corporation’s reputation is the overall estimation in which it is held by its internal and external stakeholders based on its past actions and probability of its future behavior (Harrison). The world economy is far more interconnected than it used to be and global corporations, especially, have more competition than ever before. Meanwhile, the internet and new technologies have democratized thought leadership and reputation, giving millions of consumers a voice in a corporation’s reputation and brand (Doorley, Garcia 2011). A company 's reputation and

Company Q is a small local grocery store chain who has made poor decisions when it comes to social responsibility. Company Q’s business is suffering because the owners’ do not know the heart of running a business, Social responsibility. When opening a business it is not all about the money. Sure it is nice to think about growth and reaping the benefits of a bigger bank account, but the first thing that is important in business is the consumers. Who is buying what you are selling? What will make consumers buy more, comeback, or tell friends? Businesses flourish around consumers. So if it is money you are after, then consumers are who you need and want. So in business in order for Company Q to get what they want and need, they will need to give the consumer what they want and need, social responsibility. Give back, it has always been said “It is better to give than to receive.” After careful review of Company Q's business actions, this company lacks social responsibility in many areas.

This article is study of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability. It mainly speaks about the origin and the operations of CSR programs in the United States of America from the 1980’s.

Nowadays, many international companies take sustainable development seriously. They understand that sustainable development can enhance their quality of life and their reputation in public. Sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Brundtland, 1987) Sustainability requires monitoring and managing all the person to ensure that our economy and society can continue to exist without destroying the social and natural environment during development. The sustainability includes three pillars, which are economic, social and environment, forming a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line demands that a company 's responsibility lies

Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2 I. The development of global, European and national policies relating to sustainability. 2 1. Changing attitudes of public, politicians and businesses to the environment since 1945 .................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Brundtland definition of ‘sustainable development’ .................................................. 4 3. The international and UK policies to sustainable development since Earth Summit of 1992

Company X’s attitude towards being socially responsible is being clouded by its desire to maintain high profits. With its current actions, Company X is catering to a select group of its primary stakeholders such as the investors and shareholders. They seem to be forgetting that the customers, employees, and the community are also primary stakeholders. We will look into the scenario and dissect the company’s actions to show how they are alienating the community that will ultimately determine their reputation and profitability.

Becoming a socially responsible company is an ethical goal every business has a duty to strive for. As a small grocery store, Company Q currently has policies in place that do not create a socially responsible culture. Currently they have three main focuses that need to be addressed, the closing of stores in high crime areas, the high margins on health conscious and organic products, and the policy for day-old products. The current policies do not improve the companies reputation as a socially responsible company. In fact some of the actions negatively impact the company and its reputation.

For decades, corporate social responsibility was viewed, both internally and externally, as an insincere marketing effort made by corporations for the sole purpose of increasing their profits. Today, however, companies and consumers alike are realizing that corporate social responsibility, or CSR, can be done in a way that benefits both parties. One perspective, stakeholder matching, requires that any specific statement about the relationship between a firm’s social performance toward a stakeholder group be measured by financial or organizational performance that can be directly correlated to that action. Essentially, the approach clarifies that advantageous CSR is not about having corporate employees pick up trash once a year; instead, effective CSR practices benefit both the firm and its relevant environment in a tangible, worthwhile, and measurable way. In this paper, we will discuss C-Leveled, an organization that advises startups and new businesses in the Pittsburgh area that are interested in making an impact while creating a sustainable business model. By applying the principles of stakeholder matching, we will make a business case for various stakeholders to support C-Leveled’s efforts to generate business opportunities while addressing local food sustainability. Specifically, we will look at creating an efficient supply chain, a favorable cost structure, and increasing a variety of business opportunities available when

With the recent corporate scandals involving such companies as Enron and Martha Stewart, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has once again made its way to the forefront of contemporary management ideologies. However, CSR itself is not a new concept. In fact, societies as far back as the Ancient Mesopotamians (circa 1700 BC) incorporated CSR in their businesses. "King Hammurabi introduced a code in which builders, innkeepers or farmers were put to death if their negligence caused the deaths of others, or major inconvenience to local citizens." With each new "Enron" managers of similar corporations are suddenly placed in the spotlight, causing plans to be put into action to create a more socially responsible company.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) is a term describing a company’s obligation to be accountable to all of its stakeholder in all its operation and activities. Socially responsible companies consider the full scope of their impact on communities and the environment when making decisions, balancing the needs of stakeholder with their need to make profit.

The corporates were suggested by Hogner (1982) to legitimize their corporate social decisions and activities. In 1983, Lindblom stated a framework about legitimacy theory to explain why companies should disclosure the social information and environment information. Many social studies relied on this framework to claim the theoretical structure. The legitimacy theory was born to strengthen objective of the corporate management to react to the expectations of the community members (Tilt,1994). In 1995, Suchman combine the framework stated by Lindblom and the literatures resources, and issued a framework about legitimacy theory to provide the roles about the mandatory companies should disclosure the environment

In different streams of literature and thought, organisation have been called upon to measure, manage and report on their environmental, social and governance performance. In addition to each being recognised as important in its own right, various studies have sought to identify the links between corporate social performance and financial performance (lee, et.al. 2009; peloza, 2009). A challenge for proponents of these non- traditional dimensions of performance has been to find ways to integrate them into existing performance measurement regimes (Figge,et al.,2002). This is important because the way in which individuals are measured and reward will impact on the decision that they make. To extent that evaluation and