” If  the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise”?

When I first read the prompt on the website, I laughed out loud due to the unrealistic and implausible assumption that the United Nations would ever be fully funded.  Why?  Simple human nature.

But I will humour whomever wrote this prompt, and make the assumption that it is indeed fully funded. However, I argue that the UN’s state of funding is not directly related to social enterprises; therefore, the need of social enterprises remains constant.

A program that is fully funded does not necessarily mean it is efficient, nor effective.  Success is not based on the amount of funding available.  Of course, money can help.  But it is hardly a determinant factor of success.

That being said, just because the United Nations is now capable of poverty alleviation, it doesn’t mean that it will successfully do so.  We need social enterprises, as they enhance the triple bottom line.

In addition, the world would still need companies that maintain corporate social responsibility.  Why?  If everyone put a little effort into making the world a better place, then how can the result be worse?

Of course, this is all theoretical.  But something that would happen for sure is the citizens’ dissatisfaction with the heads of state who contribute great monetary value to result in the UN being fully funded.

Najla recently wrote a blog post connecting the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility  to Walmart.  Her piece was a reply to Mahesh’s post, but I will focus mainly on her response and interpretation.

Walmart has continuously violated air and water pollution regulations, and thus has been forced by the U.S. government to pay millions in damages.  It is now attempting to make amends by demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR).  Najla’s premise is that CSR will increase long term profit; I argue that corporate social responsibility will only significantly increase profits if the public is aware of the company adopting such ethical practices.

Once there is a scandal, the company in question must rehabilitate its image in order to increase profits in the long run.  This can not be left to the saturated, and inefficient media coverage.  To get a direct message to the consumers, the company (or rather, the Marketing and PR departments) must release a campaign backing up its new position.

The perfect example: Nike.  It saw severe backlash from the public when evidence regarding its sweatshop practices was released more than a decade ago.  Instead of shying away from the allegations, Nike decided to take responsibility of the situation, and began a campaign advocating transparency, and proper working conditions.  The Business Insider presents a timeline on how Nike overcame the scandal.

The public was exposed to the fact that Nike was attempting to become more socially responsible, and thus the company managed to survive.  It managed to reposition itself in the consumers’ minds: something that is significantly more difficult to achieve than simply creating another brand that from the beginning advocates ethical practices.

I am interested in seeing the development of Walmart’s course of action: if it does not manage to successfully demonstrate to the public its new stance on ethical practices, then it would face a rejective market.

Sidebar–A Question Worth Investigating

Which is more costly: creating a new brand, or launching a corrective campaign with severe advertising to reposition the line?

I have always been interested in human resources management: how do you motivate your employees?  Why do certain people tend to slack off?  Are “free-thinking” companies (those that allow their employees to do yoga and to relax in communal gardens) less productive than the traditional office setting?  How do you get a person to do their best work, all the time?

Whenever there is a collaboration, the question of productivity arises.  In this blog post by Bruce Jones of the Disney Institute, he argues that the secret lies within employee engagement.

Intellectual property of the Disney Institute,

He argues that employees need more than health benefits and a decent paycheque.  In order for them to do their best work, they need to know that you care.  You need to demonstrate genuine concern for their wellbeing, and take their ideas into serious consideration.

It’s not a quick solution: if management was previously uncaring, and demanded results around the clock, then the company would need to “market” the management team i.e. it would need to position the managing team in the consumer’s mind (in this case, the employees!) This method takes effort on behalf of management, and it relies heavily on sincerity.  But it’s a simple concept that makes sense (at least to me): care for your employees, and they won’t want to let you down.

I think human resources is basically about keeping your employees happy.  But the difficult part is maintaining a balance between cost and happiness.  I look forward to Thursday’s class, and to our guest speaker to weigh in on this concept.