欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博
英国论文代写,英国essay代写知名品牌微信

Paper代写范文

为您解决留学中生活、学习、工作的困难、疑惑
释放自我

Paper代写:Corporate social responsibility

2018-02-08 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别:Paper代写范文

本篇paper代写- Corporate social responsibility讨论了企业社会责任的问题。公众形象是企业的一切。如今,消费者的决定不仅取决于产品的质量和价格,还取决于他们对企业的看法。而公司形象与社会责任有很大的关系。因此,很多企业公司都在努力建立自己的公众形象,去参加一些慈善活动和保证售后的问题。企业社会责任对于企业的利益是非常有用的。它可以为企业建立积极的形象,因此企业社会责任也是企业发生危机后重建信任的重要因素之一。本篇paper代写51due代写平台整理,供大家参考阅读。

Chapter 1 –Introduction

Public image is everything for both small and large corporations. Nowadays, consumers make their decisions not only based on the quality of the product, the pricing, the commercials, but also their perceptions of the company itself. Starbucks does not simply sell espresso to go this far as the No.1 chain coffee shop globally. It is actually promoting the concept of good service and art of life to its loyal customers, contributing to a certain image. As a result of its successful public image building, customers can see themselves grabbing their favorite drinks and relaxing with happiness when speaking of Starbucks. Therefore, companies all strive to build up their conceived public image as benevolent, caring, and responsible.

Just as a good image that can bring attention and fondness from customers, bad public image affects not only the sales of a company’s products, but also its long-term developments. Recently, there has been an increase in public distrust towards corporations as a result of increased scandals and negative outcomes. The negative events have resulted in reduced public trust towards these companies, as well as the lower desire for consumers to purchase products from these companies. Therefore when certain events happen, such as a crisis that cast a dark cloud over the company, 

There are numerous real-life examples that can explain how companies’ public image can be destroyed overnight. For instance, Texaco was accused of discrimination and subsequently lost up to $1.1 billion as the price of negative public image (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). Another example would be Nike who suffered from multi-countries’ boycott after news revealing its sweatshops in Southeast Asia that employed children as illegal labor. Building up one’s public image seems hard, for it takes years of efforts and countless events to strengthen such image and maintain the expectation rooted in the public.

The manner in which the public perceives an individual organization has the potential to build it or break it. Regaining public trust is significantly complex as it involves altering the psychological perception of millions of people who view such companies and corporations negatively (McNabb, King, & Pētersons, 2010). It is especially difficult when the negative impact had a direct impact on specific individuals. In this regard, public trust is one-asset hat companies should always seek to protect towards keeping a clean reputation, which is essential for business growth and sustainability.

Speaking of public image and public trust, both ideas are closely connected to a term which most corporates and organization find essential – corporate social responsibility. It is for their own benefits that corporates are likely to behave in social responsible ways instead of against it, and the vital reason here is the possibility of harming their public image. For the past twenty years, an increased concern on how corporate social responsibility might affect business and political realms have grown (Campbell, 2007). A certain link between a corporate’s CSR and its financial performance has been noticed by many business leaders as well as academic theorists. According to Campbell (2007), quite an amount of research has been done over the past few years on CSR and other attributes which shows different factors that contributes to such link, calling for more serious inquiry to this matter.

Studies have shown that CSR is quite useful for the benefit of a corporation. It can build positive images for corporations and therefore CSR could be one of the processes to rebuilding trust after crises happen. However, many companies still do not know how to successfully implement the CSR initiatives, and they are not aware of the fact that the wrong timing or inappropriate strategies might lead to unwanted outcomes, such as increasing the severity of the crisis instead of alleviating it. For this paper, there will be the focus on three specific companies to understand the relevance of CSR in the crisis. Organizations that will be the probed are NongFu Spring water, Fiji water, and Volkswagen. These three companies have faced unique situations in their geographical areas and have been able to sustain by developing a CSR practice that was unique and met the subjective needs of the situation.

As a Chinese bottled water company, Nongfu Spring water’s biggest market lays in the domestic one and its public image has always been carefully maintained. The company announces that its concept of production is ‘natural and healthy’ and promises that it would never use tap water or add artificial minerals into their bottled drinking water. Nongfu also promotes that idea that protecting the environment around the source of spring is crucial for the success of their products. However, in 2013, Nongfu Spring Water was critiqued not to follow its quality standards. In China, there is a growing concern about the safety of the food products.Also, there is an increasing consensus that the companies do not care about the people.There were lots of rumors about the quality of the water on each social media. The dangerous rhetoric created and instilled fear in the people about procuring the brand. At that time, it was found that the negative comments about the brand rose to 80% on the Internet. Main concerns include those about water quality problems caused by the origin of water that doesn’t meet national standards. Many expressed their belief in the media that reported the news and called the statements of Nongfu as typical PR moves. There are also customers who complained about the fake Nongfu bottles in the market and complained about its quality control as well as the price inflation.

The Fiji Water Company is a famous bottled water exporter who is based in the United States. The origins of its bottled water are from the largest island of Fiji and the company’s commercials are all about how pure and natural the Fiji spring is. Due to successful marketing and sales, the company owns large share of international high-end bottled water market, and consumers consider it to be a company that protects the natural balance and offers premium products. However, the company got into series of troubles which led to doubted problems. First of all, the company was able to escape from paying taxes since 1995. In 2011, they were finally forced to pay the back taxes.Apart from this, the company was discredited for linking itself to the government and causing changes based on the paradigm and not undertaking genuine efforts to help the environment (greenwashing). The company was able to sustain and change its brand persona by undertaking genuine efforts to rebuild the community (Ali & Ackley, 2011).

Volkswagen is the largest automaker worldwide. Originated from Germany, the company has a history of over 80 years and its products are sold all over the globe. The company has always promoted its slogan of ‘the people’s car’ and customers have faith in its economic, safe products. The cars from the company not only has won the customers’ hearts, but also won many of the prizes worldwide, including car of the year in Europe, US, and Asia. However, even such a big multinational enterprise bothers when encountering negative publicity crisis. In early 2015, a massive scandal in the international auto industry reared its ugly head; at the center of the deceiving hydra was Volkswagen, who “admitted that 11 million of its vehicles were equipped with software that was used to cheat on emissions tests” (Gates, Ewing, Russell, & Watkins, 2016). The scandal is thus called the ‘emission gate’ for Volkswagen, and it received lawsuit from the EPA, California court, and class action from millions of consumers. It causes the extensive damage to the environment, possible damage to people on the planet (nitrogen oxide, one of the chemicals catalytic converters reduce emissions, causes emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma). Volkswagen’s stock tanked immediately after the crisis and suffered from enormous loss for up to billions.

Based on these three case studies, the purpose of this paper is to understand how CSR can positively affect a company in a crisis. The following sections will first develop a detailed literature review to research about what scholars have said about the relations between CSR and public image repair. The literatures are chosen from the angle of verifying if CSR can help a company with its reputation, and some went further to see how exactly can it help. Next is the problem definition of this paper – what problems would it like to explore? What are the hypotheses? How can these hypotheses be verified? Following that is the research design and methodology on how the cases of Nongfu Spring water, Fiji water, and Volkswagen have been able to develop their brand image. The research would be conducted through three means: case studies, focus groups, and content analysis. The combination of these three means can help fully understand my research question and verify the hypotheses from more angles than merely one. Finally, the data from research is collected and analyzed to reach findings.

Chapter 2 –Literature Review

Negative Publicity

Publicity is vital to any company, as the public’s attention can lead to economic benefits from consumers to the company and have a strong influence on its reputation. It is acknowledged to have a larger influence on the company itself than other channels, like inside communications (Dean, 2004). Therefore, companies would carry out all sorts of initiatives to improve its publicity, or, in other words, be well-known to the public (in a positive way, of course). For example, the cosmetic company L’Oreal collaborates with UNESCO and holds the annual award of Women in Science to acknowledge those who contributed to science (L’Oreal, 2016). The luxury watch company, Jaeger-LeCoultre, have made an exceptional donation to Coco Islands National Park in Costa Rica recently (HH Journal, 2013). These efforts are made to improve the company’s publicity and leave impressions in its consumers and other audiences of supportive, responsible, generous, pay-back-to-society, and philanthropic.

Due to the high potential of harming company image, negative publicity is something that any company would try to avoid. Dean (2004) point out that this is because people tend to believe negative information rather that positive ones and such tendency would lead to a larger spread of the negative publicity of companies. What is more, media like to cover bad news as they find them to be catchier to audiences (Dean, 2004); therefore if any scandal breaks out it would be a company’s great loss.

Company Crisis

A crisis for a company means economic loss as well as downslide of reputation. Therefore, it is natural the company crises may often cause negative publicity. For example, Nike encountered its major crisis of accusations towards its sweat shops set in south-east Asian countries. When the pictures of horrible living conditions and scared little kids without proper clothes came out in public, the media didn’t let the big news go. Nike thus had to pay a heavy price on following sales falls, unsatisfied shareholders, angry public, and troublesome lawsuits from relevant agencies (Nisen, 2013).

To fully explain the concept, Ulmer and Sellnow (2000) pointed out that there are several things worth noticing about corporate crisis. To begin with, they state that crisis threatens the company’s ‘social legitimacy’, which the company might lose and become what the public think as ‘dishonest, law-breaking, and irresponsible’, and that people might consider it to be having few concerns about the society (Ulmer and Sellnow, 2000). To prevent such consequences, companies should quickly reestablish its reputation and restore values indicated by the ‘norms’ (Ulmer and Sellnow, 2000). The second issue is that the crisis will also create evidence in the related legal process. It is usually very complex for the public to fully understand, and they might rely on media’s coverage to figure out that has happened, or do investigations by themselves (Ulmer and Sellnow, 2000). The Volkswagen case, for instance, is an obvious one. Customers find the lawsuits and legal process to be very confusing, and they relied on TV reports, newspapers, and even websites to see if any compensation can be made. Finally, the question after the crisis is often quite disturbing: who should take the blame? The public needs answers to the damages caused and they want the company in fault to take responsibilities (Dean, 2004).

In conclusion, the three issues decide that any company should organize its communications well enough to cope with such crises so that it can strategically respond to the loss of legitimacy, legal evidence, and follow-up responsibilities.

Crisis Reaction

Scholars usually apply the case-study method when they look into the issue of company crisis and crisis communication. Conclusions of what a company should and shouldn’t do are reached as results of the studies. Meanwhile, there are quite a few who explored the conceptual parts of the issue. Birkland (1997) studies about the public policy perspective of the crisis communication, arguing that the event itself could be the change agent since it result in fully attention from the public. In other words, the public can push forward a crisis and act as catalyst. His idea is to be found very interesting in the setting.

Meanwhile, there are also voices on whether companies can effectively respond to crises, and what the possible responses are. Dawar and Pillutla (2000) researched about consumer behaviors and negative publicity, noting that companies might react similarly towards crisis, but the outcome is likely to be different if consumers hold various expectations. This means that if consumers had previous positive opinion towards a certain company over another, then their response towards identical crises over these two companies would have been quite different – with the favored company’s publicity less likely to be affected. Those who lack favorable opinions towards the company, in contrast, are likely to draw negative conclusions when they are aware of the crisis (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000). Their hypothesis included three kinds of response: first, the company publishes ‘apology, recall, or restitution’ with admitting of its defects; second, the company only admit the product defection without following apology, recall or restitution; and third, the company posts no response during the crisis (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000).

Bradford and Garrett (1995) researched about 5 typical responses to crisis events, and they found out 4 pre-conditions in general companies. The first kind of response is ‘no response’, as the company does not make any statements regarding the crisis; the second is ‘denial’, as the company stands out and deny the whole scandal or refuse to be blamed as the party of fault; the third kind is ‘excuse-offering’, as the company applies different excuses to get it out of the trouble, hoping for the public to understand; the fourth kind is ‘agree to have caused the event but deny the severity’, as the company argue that the crisis is less severe than it has been publicized; and the final kind is ‘accept responsibility’, as the company fully embrace the fact that it is to be held responsible (Bradford & Garrett, 1995). The first kind of pre-condition is that the company can prove that it ‘didn’t commit unethical actions’, with the next being the company proving it ‘didn’t have control over the crisis’, or it can hand in evidence that the crisis is ‘less severe than publicized’, with the final one being that the company ‘fully accept responsibility’, and the last condition is considered to be optimal when it comes to crisis communication (Bradford & Garrett, 1995).

Ahluwalia et al. (2000) stated that consumers’ commitments into branding will moderate the outcomes of negative publicity, as they researched about how these consumers commit based on various interests. The critical role commitment play in ‘counter-attitudinal information’ makes it important when it comes to crisis communication (Ahluwalia et al., 2000). The authors announce that if consumers have a low level of commitment into certain branding, they are likely to change their attitudes faster when sudden negative crises happen. Their interaction with the company is therefore predictable based on the level of commitment.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to the social, ethical, and environmental obligations to the society that it is in, which cause the leadership of the company to respect social interest and setting up bottom line for its own sake (Argenti, 2009). Argenti (2009) also stated that CSR can provide actions related to the company that serves the goal of both ‘voluntary and proactive’, which can be combined in its business patterns to serve for success over a long term than only current investment returns. This means that CSR is an investment for companies rather than a debt to pay back to the society. By investing in CSR initiatives, companies are not only making philanthropic efforts to the environment, the poor, or those who are affected by their production process, but rather reducing the negative effects for a longer term (Argenti, 2009). This is much better than making up with monetary compensations, or simply hiding the truth from the public until it arises to become a crisis.

Scholars suggest that corporations choose to behave in socially responsible ways because it significantly affects their financial performance and social images. Although corporations have the goal to maximize profit and shareholder value with all their efforts, and behaving socially responsible seems to be contradicting to this purpose, studies have shown that CSR can bring more benefits than costs under certain circumstances (Campbell, 2007). What should be the bear in mind for a public corporation is that its shareholders are also part of their important audience, and they would like companies to increase CSR initiatives (Iacono, 2009).

Acknowledging that the idea of corporates behaving social responsibly might seem absurd for some people, as they all agree that corporates ultimate goal is to realize their own interests but no others, Campbell (2007) specifically argued that economic conditions are the key component in influencing a corporation to act in socially responsible ways. He gave examples that certain firms, while pursuing profits, have showed socially irresponsible behaviors such as customer deception, regulation cheating, tax-breaking, and labor-exploitations (Campbell, 2007). However, Campbell (2007) also provided more examples of those firms that did just the opposite to the irresponsible acts above. The CSR behaviors include giving to the poor, charity donations, decent treatment to staffs, great benefits on employment, and more.

The reason, as Campbell (2007) and other scholars argued, is that those who behaved according to CSR standards finds political and economic benefits to their firms as a whole. Therefore, the transnational corporations with positive financial performance would have a larger probability of behaving more social responsibly as it lies within their line of self-interest. CSR also serves as a moral boost for corporates’ internal employees and staffs as it encourages them to work in an environment that gives back to the society, not to mention the fact that employees participate actively even during the difficult times in economy (Iacono, 2009).

CSR demands to be a long-term, steady investment because it matters on more than one level to companies. Some scholars point out that making such continued commitment isn’t easy for all companies, especially those who are only searching for obvious paybacks. According to Iacono (2009), those companies that continue their efforts of CSR even during recession have different reasons. This is because CSR can help companies to maintain its public image and allow consumers to support in other ways other than financial payments, such as ‘buying specific products or making small donations’ (Iacono, 2009). Also, the commitment of the company shown through the CSR efforts can be verified in this way and it helps to ‘build brand loyalty’ for the company itself, not to mention the fact that the shareholders of the company, no matter individuals or organized groups, encourages companies to contribute more to CSR activities; and that the internal benefit of the CSR efforts can ‘provide a much-neede morale boost’ for employees when times are hard (Iacono, 2009). 

CSR’s Effect on Crisis Communication

Corporate Social Responsibility has a positive impact on crisis communication and rebuilding trust. To begin with, some scholars think that CSR lays the foundation of company legitimacy. Suchman(1995) suggested that legitimacy is ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’(p.574). Handelman and Arnold (1999), on the other hand, suggest two types of legitimation of firms: On one hand, a company can gain legitimacy through certain actions they show in the public that present its norms of social environment, which composes the pragmatic type of legitimation. On the other hand, a company needs also to achieve the social aspect of legitimacy for it to earn consumers’ support in the long run. In the opinion of Vanhamme and Grobben (2008), these two types of legitimacy are both vital to companies while social legitimacy acts stronger when it serves to establish the right public image. What is more, the CSR can have a positive effect on consumers when making inferences about certain company benefits. Vanhamme and Grobben (2008) go on and suggest that companies must defend their legitimacy, both in social and pragmatic realms, to recover from the social responsibility crisis they encounter as means of defending reputation.

Brown & Dacin (1997) found that CSR positively influences the company and its products when it comes to consumer evaluations. Also, CSR would reduce the risk of brand damage, as consumers might expect fewer responsibilities from a company with strong CSR during such crisis (Klein & Dawar, 2004). Vanhamme & Grobben (2009) suggested that CSR encourages corporate communication about social efforts, which enables a company to rebuild its reputation and protect its image. For example, companies would use cause-related marketing to realize their objectives in reducing negative effects and crisis communication (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). As it comes to company performance, CSR can have a halo effect be projecting such positive company image and ‘creating credibility and trustworthiness among the general public’ (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009, 275). It means that the longer a company initiate CSR programs and gain trust from the public, the better it can be protected from negative events like a crisis or an emergency. Therefore, the overall effectiveness of defending company image would depend on the company’s history of implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).

Scholars have also found that CSR can be carried out in the sense of social initiatives, and those who failed to do so might suffer from severe payments. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) conducted studies and found that they present consistent results on the relations between social initiatives and the benefits of firms. The right CSR strategies that fit the firm will make consumers improve their perceptions and motivate them to reward with purchasing behavior. In the interviews, most respondents believed that firms that were irresponsible should be boycotted, which obviously would harm the profit and development of these firms. What is more, Levy (1999) expressed that corporate responsibility and social initiatives are the core of business and should be consistent with the firm’s objectives both in short and long term.

Coombs (2014) stated that proper insights into crisis communication can be applied to improve the process and that CSR is part of the effectively applied communication. However, there are some concerning statements when it comes to whether companies should actively show CSR actions during a crisis. According to Vanhamme & Grobben (2009), it is recommended that companies should better not mention obvious CSR actions during crisis communication as a strategy because consumers would generate levels of disbelief, especially when the company has only invested in CSR for a short period. This is because the possession of clear interest and the lack of solid reputation ‘are known to undermine the credibility of legitimating attempts’ (McGuire, 1985).

Similarly, Catchpole (2009) concluded that it is now quite common that a company has done numerous CSR activities of which it is proud of, and the company would like to share such lessons with its peers and shareholders to make the business world better. But when it comes to practice, the company does not prefer looking like all its CSR efforts are done for the primary reason of publicity. Catchpole (2009) pointed out that to avoid this loophole; a company should deeply internalize its CSR efforts together with its corrective actions that required during its public service and product development.

Analysis of Literature Review

The literature review have plenty support on the statement that CSR initiatives can assist a company to improve its crisis communication and diminish the harm of negative publicity. It first draws on the concept of negative publicity and its harms to company, moving on what company crisis can threaten its social legitimacy to CSR’s Effect on Crisis Communication. Studies have shown that those companies who have gained consumer’s long term commitments can easily recover from crises and take the blow less hard. How to build up such commitments? This is where CSR comes up. As a tool that can show social responsibility of the company, CSR contributes as a long-term investment for company because it can build up a ‘reservoir of goodwill’ upon certain crises (Dean, 2004). Benefiting the company from both political and financial terms, CSR enables the company to identify risks before events, cope with communications more swiftly, and build up deeper trust from the public.

Therefore, it seems perfectly legitimate and well-intended for companies to take actions in CSR events. However, there are also voices indicating that the implementation of CSR efforts should be wise and fit for different companies. The public perceive each movement of the company with their own judgment, not to mention that the media love negative news to make a sound. When a move seems less genuine, the public image might suffer from deeper falls. The previous and historical efforts of CSR as well as the publicized motive of certain CSR initiatives matters much for the public to trust the company, especially during the crisis.

Just as Vanhamme and Grobben (2009) warn companies, the history and length of the CSR matters a lot in its implications of implementation. They say that companies with longer history of CSR can enjoy a better effect of the goodwill reservoir and longer damage buffer than those who only respond at the outbreak of the crisis. Consumers are also likely to doubt the motive of a company if it immediately carries out obvious CSR initiatives when a crisis happens. Scholars suggest that they wait until the crisis end and then start to initiate post-crisis CSRs with less obvious intentions to repair images and regain trust.

要想成绩好,英国论文得写好,51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯,专业辅导,还为你提供专业英国essay代写paper代写,report代写,需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ800020041或者WechatAbby0900吧。

我们的优势

  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测

英国站