I chose two companies and analyzed them to explain why it is considered either “good” or “bad”.
–Starbucks Corporation: This Company is considered as “good”, because Starbucks has three goals to be achieved by 2015. First off, Starbucks plans for 100% ethical sourcing by 2015. It is currently at 75%. Starbucks means to be responsibly grown, ethically traded coffee to help create a better future for farmers and their communities. Second of all, their goal is that 100% of its coffee cups will become reusable or recyclable by 2015. Also, 100% of stores will be able to recycle its paper products. Starbucks offers a 10% discount to people who bring in their own reusable mug for their coffee these days. They have also reduced the size of paper napkins and store garbage bags; have reduced their water consumption as well. Last but not least, Starbucks is also committed to sponsoring 1 million community service hours a year by 2015. This includes helping rebuild New Orleans, providing earthquake relief assistance in China and activities in Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, as well as Ireland. Even though Starbucks Corporation is not perfect, one can perceive that Starbucks coffee has been growing socially responsible.
–Veet Corporation: This Company is considered “bad”, because of the fact that they did not manufacture animal-tested products and brands that are owned by companies that have not yet adopted a permanent “no animal testing” policy. One should encourage Veet Corporation to announce a permanent ban. Furthermore, they have not eliminated animal testing from all its cosmetics product lines. They also make products that are required by law to be tested on animals. However, they are not attempted to be socially responsible. Therefore, Veet is regarded as “bad” Company since it conducts animal tests (of personal-care and household products) that are not required by law.
*Question: Do you think that investing in socially responsible companies will contribute to a better environment?
-I think that investing in socially responsible companies will contribute to a better environment. The reason is because the companies can promote better good for the society and the environment. By doing so, the companies will seek to maximize both financial return and social good. Moreover, the companies should favor corporate practices that promote environmental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights, and diversity.
I agree with you. It may seem like corporations with social responsibility get disadvantage because they have to spend extra money and time on it. But, I believe it can motivate workers and get more attention from consumers. So, in long run, it can actually benefit the company. Also, I think it’s important for society to encourage it. The society should encourage employees to speak out about the problems in the corporations and protect them.
Corporations play a huge role in how we can deal with the issue of climate change. There was a report released by the British Government. The report was written by economist Nicholas Stern, chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. In the report it suggested that “The cost of climate change mitigation, basically reducing the severity of the issue, will be 1% of annual GDP by 2050 if we ACT NOW, 5-20% if we act LATER.” It is quite clear that corporations should adapt to some sort of sustainability, eco-friendly business model. Not only will it benefit this planet, it actually benefits the companies as well. One of the guest speakers to my ENV100 last semester, Bob Willard, told the students that after calculations that he made and research, it was shown that small-scale corporations and large-scale corporations could enjoy an increase in profits from 40% to 60% if they adapt some sort of sustainability plan.
Investing in socially responsible corporations is most definitely important. These days, Corporations have so much power it is frightening. Especially those of thare transnational, they hold so much power that when they commit crimes it’s “blue collard” it normally goes on unspoken or they do not face great reprimands. For instance- sweat shop labour that still occurs with transnational corporations. I can only imagine the monstrosities that occur with climate change.
Most definitely! The investment wouldn’t be ‘wasted’ because of the positive reputation of the company. The public would recognize it as being socially responsible, and the more people recognize the company as being socially responsible, the more benefit it brings to the company. It’s clearly ‘bi-winning’ so to speak… as it helps the environment to ensure that less waste is produced i.e. as you said less water usage, smaller paper napkins, and their aim of reusable/recyclable cups by 2015! As their costs of production may (in the long term) be reduced, it would probably promote other companies to become like them as well (or however that works… if you can’t beat em join em?)