Keywords

Introduction

Conscious Global Movement

Social Responsibility (SR) is here to stay, and for good reasons! Whether pertaining to the micro (personal) or macro (organizational/global) level, and regardless of the environment on which one focuses, there is an undisputed movement to be detected toward enhanced awareness in the behavioral realm. “Despite the obvious differences, enterprises in business and science confront similar challenges, including the governance of large and disparate organizations, the inculcation and transmission of culture and values, the reconciliation of self-interest and societal interests, and the proper balance between self-regulation and external regulation” (Conley et al. 2015, p. 64). Conley et al. point out that the search for a meaningful concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been going on for more than 25 years now, with the aim of applying this concept through robust self-regulatory regimes. While the efforts have accomplished some tangible good, the CSR movement has also been criticized as a self-serving public relations ploy with a main purpose of using easily manipulated self-regulation to head off coercive governmental regulation (Conley et al. 2015, p. 64).

Nonetheless, the triggers detected for the SR movement over the past few decades have contributed to humanity’s collective attention that it is time to become serious about our social behavior, and that it is no longer acceptable to engage in practices for mere selfish gain without considering the short-term and long-term ramifications these practices have on the environment, as well as human and nonhuman stakeholders. One of the most critical of these triggers is the petrifying fact that our current global footprint exceeds our earth’s capacity to regenerate by about 30%, and that more than 75% of the human race lives in countries where the national consumption has exceeded the country’s bio-capacity (World Wide Fund for Nature 2008). If humanity continues its contemporary lifestyle, we will need the equivalent of two planets around the 2030s (ASQ and Manpower Professionals 2011). Wilting and van Oorschot (2017) warn that the current global demand for food, wood, energy, and water has damaging consequences for global biodiversity, in general, but most profoundly for animal species. They stress that further policy action is needed to decrease biodiversity loss, as this destructive trend will otherwise continue if current trends in population and income growth are continued. Sadly, the continued decline in global terrestrial biodiversity will incite a concentration of losses in biodiverse but economically poor countries (Wilting and van Oorschot 2017).

Since many of such trends are corporate driven, and prior to briefly examining some concerns in this realm, it may be prudent to first present a definition of Corporate Social Responsibility. Blowfield and Frynas (2005) offer the following definition of CSR:

“[A]n umbrella term for a variety of theories and practices all of which recognize the following: (a) that companies have a responsibility for their impact on society and the natural environment, sometimes beyond legal compliance and the liability of individuals; (b) that companies have a responsibility for the behavior of others with whom they do business (e.g., within supply chains); and (c) that business needs to manage its relationship with wider society, whether for reasons of commercial viability or to add value to society” (p. 503).

It seems that the focus of CSR is oftentimes rather skewed, especially in developing countries. Amaeshi et al. (2016) report that Corporate Social Responsibility in developing countries, particularly in Africa, focuses more on multinational corporations (MNCs) and less on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), simply because MNCs are (a) considered more powerful and visible; (b) SMEs presumably lack influence and resources; and (c) SMEs are presumed to be more reactive (avoiding irresponsible behavior) and less or not proactive (social activism). Lund-Thomsen et al. (2016) add to this concern that, in developing countries, the role of SMEs is tainted by buyer-driven global value chains, which, on the one hand, promote the introduction of Western-style CSR policies in these developing countries and, on the other hand, undermine labor and environmental standards through cut-throat pricing policies and the threat of relocating orders to other low-cost producers elsewhere in the developing world. This, then, gives rise to the risk that “CSR initiatives in developing country clusters become either an exercise in economic and cultural imperialism or an attempt by local SMEs to greenwash their environmentally and social destructive activities” (p. 22).

It can easily be concluded that such double standards lead to severe discouragement, abuse, and neglect of important constituents in the SR movement. There are, after all, far more SMEs in the world than MNCs. No longer can we overlook or derail midsized and smaller partners in this critical stage.

Fortunately, there is also some good news: awareness is on the rise. A 2009 McKinsey report confirms that almost half of all investment professionals agree that the recent global economic depression has elevated the essence of governance program, two-thirds of chief financial officers agree that environmental, social, and governance programs create value for shareholders, and two-thirds of executives believe that environmental and governance programs will increase shareholder value (Valuing Corporate Social Responsibility 2009). The spread of CSR around the globe is increasingly gaining visibility. More than 90% of the largest companies in major developed markets, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have adopted the CSR codes of conduct, one of this trend’s most prominent tools. However, as is the case in any evolving trend, there is still considerable heterogeneity in approaches to CSR between firms in different countries (Preuss et al. 2016).

One of the common trends to be detected in CSR is employee volunteerism. In recent years, corporate leaders have increasingly gravitated to this trend, not only because it enhances awareness on responsible behavior, but also because it has turned out to be a proven way of successfully attracting and retaining employees, while also improving the corporation’s reputation and performance. About 90% of Fortune 500 companies currently have employee volunteer programs, in which employees are supported and/or subsidized to engage in volunteer activities and community outreach on company (Cycyota et al. 2016). Indeed, with the abundance of connectivity and expanded infrastructural alternatives at our disposal, corporate leaders and quality professionals have become increasingly aware of the moral duty that is embedded in performing socially responsible, from considering the environment to selecting their suppliers; from managing their production to operating fairly in the market; and from treating their workforce well to honoring their direct and indirect stakeholders.

In a broad sense, SR is a framework through which individuals and larger entities, such as corporations, fulfill their moral duty to ensure society’s well-being. Yet, while intentions may be admirable, perspectives and interpretations differ. There is still a widespread lack of clarity about what it means to be “socially responsible” and how it can be accomplished (Common Ground: Quality and Social Responsibility 2007). This confusion has led to widely diverging results, and had been the reason for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), with assistance from experts of more than 75 countries (ASQ and Manpower Professionals 2011), to launch an international standard in November 2010, ISO 26000, in order to provide guidelines for SR toward global sustainable development. Within the ISO 26000 context, SR is described as the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that contributes to sustainable development, including well-being of society, acknowledges stakeholder expectations, complies with applicable laws and international behavioral norms, and is embedded in the organization’s internal and external relationships (ISO 26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility 2010).

Moratis (2017) explains that the ISO 26000 standard includes several recommendations for enhancing the reliability of corporate CSR claims. Part of these suggestions can be retrieved in a dedicated clause called “Enhancing credibility regarding social responsibility.” Yet, the standard also implicitly refers to strategies for enhancing CSR credibility in other parts of its text. Moratis (2017) further affirms that ISO 26000 considers stakeholder engagement a critical means of increasing confidence in the fact that the interests and intentions of all participants are considered.

ISO 26000 : Shifting Gears from Why to How

As ISO 26000 has rooted itself into the day-to-day vocabularies and practices of quality professionals, the “why” of SR has become increasingly clear: This is a trend that will rather augment with time than ever diminish, because humanity as a whole is increasingly grasping the importance of safeguarding our planet and all its inhabitants for decades, centuries, and hopefully millennia, to come. However, the “how” has turned out to be a little thornier, particularly when evaluating a company’s daily processes within a larger performance scope. After all, strategies, markets, resources, relationships, laws, environments, and stakeholders differ for every company and every industry.

One of the question marks that has emerged in past years is how to perceive SR in light of quality. Fortunately, the seasoned quality professional has figured that one out by now: quality and SR complement one another in such a sense, that SR has given more depth than ever to quality, since now not only output but also input and processes are considered in the equation (Maher 2014).

Investing in quality principles such as continual improvement, employee empowerment, and reduction of errors and waste contributes to the overall SR profile of an organization. The strong correlation between quality and SR can also be considered through the lens of current and future outcomes, with quality providing a conceptual approach and supporting tools for analyzing current behaviors and needs, and SR outlining a universal structure toward creating a sustainable future (Robinson et al. 2012).

However, the quality discussion is just the tip of the iceberg, for, as quality professionals dive deeper into the operational side of SR, they fully understand the bulwark of challenges a complete and sound SR implementation brings. Setting up an SR framework means including the core elements of human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and development, and organizational governance (American National Standard 2011). Each of these elements is essential yet intricate in itself. Let us find out how some corporations have dealt with these core elements.

Human Rights

These are the foundational rights for all human beings as emphasized by the international community in the International Bill of Human Rights and its core instruments. Human rights are generally divided into two categories: (1) pertaining to civil and political rights and (2) concerning economic, social, and cultural rights (American National Standard 2011). Both categories aim to ensure human dignity and proper quality of life. Organizations have the power to affect human rights by virtue of their negotiations, as well as their economic and social influence. Among the many factors organizations should consider in this light are, for example, due diligence and responsible risk management, avoiding condoning crimes or discrimination, resolving grievances and observing civil rights in order to positively, rather than negatively, impact human rights. Including human rights in the SR strategy is therefore critical.

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

Fulfilling the human rights requirement within an organization can be complex, because, as indicated above, there are many angles to consider. However, once a culture of stakeholder inclusion and respect is incorporated into the structures, this element will no longer be a source of concern. Some useful ways to consider in fulfilling this element are

  • Creating a member-rotating, interdepartmental committee with involvement of a Human Resources representative, to meet regularly and consider the organization’s internal and external performance throughout its production cycle in observation of human rights. The committee should not only assess current activities, but also proposed ones, to make sure human rights are not affected. This committee could further review issues that have emerged, propose solutions, and build structures to prevent recurrence of problems in this area. Consideration of social, cultural, and political climates should not be excluded. The rotating aspect is needed to prevent the committee from becoming too comfortable in its ways and from developing groupthink.

  • Ensuring a direct communication line with top management to solidify swift and efficient strategic action where this needs to be taken.

  • Avoiding connections and partnerships with entities that engage in human rights abuse.

  • Ensuring that the company does not fall into the pattern of placing profit over people: This is such an easy trap to fall into, so it will take conscious examination of internal processes, but also those entities that a company outsources parts of its productions to, in order to make sure that people are not underpaid, discriminated against, overworked, or being subjected to glass or pink ceilings.

  • Depending on its size, the organization can instate a Chief Diversity Officer or Diversity Director to maintain a legal and sensible approach in equal treatments of internal and external stakeholders.

CSR Case Study: IKEA

IKEA, the Swedish furniture company with a global presence, has been known for quite some time for its socially responsible approach, not only in production, but in all aspects of its operation. “IKEA is a good example of a ‘globally integrated enterprise’, with a business model that integrates economic, environmental, and social perspectives as a basis for excellence, innovation, and sustainability” (Edvardsson and Enquist 2011, p. 536). While some might consider IKEA to be a product retailer, the company prefers to view itself as a service provider – because its focus is not necessarily on the furniture it sells, but rather on ‘solutions to real-life problems’ and making a contribution to a ‘better life’ for the majority of people (Edvardsson and Enquist 2011). This is directly linked to the vision of Ingvar Kamprad, IKEA’s founder, “to create a better daily life for the many people” (Morsing and Roepstorff 2015, p. 400). In order to realize this vision, IKEA International’s CSR policy focuses on diversity as a value to signify the company’s contribution to the best of the many people in a number of ways (Morsing and Roepstorff 2015). Thus, IKEA perceives its physical products more as a platform for a service experience, resulting in customer value. Included in this perception is also the notion of sustainability: IKEA’s current CEO and President, Peter Agnefjäll, reports in the company’s 2016 sustainability report that IKEA prides itself in designing products that are beautiful, functional, high-quality, affordable, and sustainable, so that it adheres to the well-being of its customers, the planet, and its own performance (IKEA Group Sustainability Report 2016).

Yet, there is more to IKEA than merely its product delivery and the way the company perceives this. For several decades now, IKEA has been active in supporting vulnerable groups to strengthen themselves and become economically and socially self-reliant. IKEA is very vocal about banning child labor and is strongly involved in UNICEF projects, but also in self-initiated endeavors. For example, in the early 1990s the company’s representatives became aware of the serious impact of child labor trends in the carpet weaving belts of India. Merely funding schools was useless, as could be seen from the many sponsored but empty school buildings in those days. This led to IKEA’s “Carpet Project” in 2000, a creative solution of enabling the child-laborer’s low-caste mothers to form self-help groups and pay off the loan sharks, upon which they could place their children back in school to obtain a decent education and have a chance on a better future (Luce 2004).

In 2017, the IKEA Foundation announced its new three-year partnership with Reach for Change, a nonprofit organization that was launched in Sweden in 2010, focuses on improving children’s lives through social innovation, and has a presence in about 18 countries on three continents, providing global support to more than 400 entrepreneurs. The partnership between the IKEA Foundation and Reach for Change intends to assist 120 Ethiopian entrepreneurs in their efforts to develop social enterprises aimed at improving the health, education, and protection of children in Ethiopia, which is Africa’s second most populous country. To this end, the IKEA Foundation donated €3.3 million grant to roll out accelerator, incubator, and rapid scale programs and provide supports to Ethiopian social entrepreneurs through a social enterprise forum. More than 84,000 Ethiopian children will benefit from this partnership, which will thus provide a major boost to the country’s social enterprise sector. More specifically, this grant aims to ensure better health, better school performance, and protection from trafficking and abuse for Ethiopian children.

A review of IKEA’s 2014 and 2016 sustainability reports highlights a variety of ways in which the company maintains its socially responsible mindset. Seven decades of continuous improvement and focus on doing the right thing have led IKEA to become a leading global force in all elements of SR: From granting major donations to children, women, refugees, and other vulnerable groups, to developing a “People and Planet Positive strategy” in which customers, co-workers, suppliers, and other stakeholder groups are carefully considered within the company’s ongoing developments. IKEA remains alert about the resources it uses. It has strong and clear policies on reducing waste, applying energy efficiency, and delivering energy-efficient products. The company invites co-workers’ and customers’ input in new product developments, encourages co-workers to engage in sustainability movements, complies with forestry standards, and ensures that suppliers do the same. In fact, IKEA has been working steadily toward deforestation, and has established partnerships with sustainability-focused global entities, while also focusing on product safety, reducing the company’s carbon footprint, and inspiring co-workers to do the same. IKEA has not stopped with educating and involving its suppliers: The company is also working toward empowering people within the company’s extended supply chain to create better lives for themselves. IKEA admits, learns, and improves from past mistakes (IKEA Group Sustainability Report 2014). Mindful about climate change, IKEA’s Chief Sustainable Officer, Steve Howard, alludes to the Paris Agreement of climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals, thus expressing support toward a cleaner, fairer world. He also underscores IWAY, which is IKEA’s code of conduct for suppliers, to ensure better quality of lives for the employees of its business partners. Another important point of progress is the company’s resource management, with currently, 61% of its wood and 100% of its cotton coming from sustainable sources. In its support of a waste-free world, IKEA’s leadership team promotes a circular economy in which waste becomes a resource for new products, and more products are made with recycled material, while the company also delivers over a million spare parts to enhance durability of its products, hence, less waste (IKEA Group Sustainability Report 2016).

In 2015, IKEA Switzerland, with its 3,000 co-workers, became the first company worldwide to achieve “LEAD,” the premier certification of EDGE, a global standard for gender equality. EGDE assessed IKEA’s Swiss operations on basis of equal pay for equivalent work, recruitment and promotion, leadership development training and mentoring, flexible working and company culture (Dunn 2015).

Labor Practices

Labor practices are inevitable in the realm of organizational performance: At the very inception of a company there is work to be done, whether the company’s output is product or service based. Labor practices encompass more than just policies and practices of a company toward its current workforce. They comprise of all work-related relationships a company maintains, all the way to the subcontractor’s levels. Within labor practices are also included the nature of work, the working conditions, grievance procedures, training and skills development, co-workers’ health, work safety, schedules, remuneration, recognition, and involvement (American National Standard 2011).

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

The first thought that enters most minds when thinking of labor practices is the Human Resource department. Indeed, this department should be the center of responsible labor practices, but it mostly does so from a legal standpoint. The topic of labor practices is too comprehensive and too important to end with mere compliance with local laws. Human beings are sensitive, and their sense of satisfaction and meaning often depends on more than just a correct legal environment. Here are some additional approaches to consider:

  • In a socially responsible organization, every department manager should take on the responsibility to ensure the most optimal utilization of compensation, meaning, respect, development, opportunities, job security, reduced stress and conflict, and all other aspects that make labor practices rewarding.

  • Department managers could consider meeting every quarter to share best practices, learn from each other’s problem areas, help brainstorm toward constructive solutions, and plan work cycles tactically toward greater consistency and less volatility.

  • Within each department, co-workers could form “meaning pods,” which can consist of small groups of creative thinkers that suggest ways to make their work more interesting (within the established parameters, of course), and find inexpensive but meaningful ways to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and other joyful moments.

  • Quality professionals could consider an annual get-together for external constituents such as suppliers or independent contractors, to kindle relationships, enhance mutual appreciation, and increase collaboration.

  • The HR department, along with quality professionals, could invite external parties from either government or other involved entities, to discuss new trends and attention areas in regards to labor practices.

  • In regards to health and safety, an interdepartmental team, as suggested in the Human Rights section, might be a useful body to detect, address, thus safeguard co-workers from hazards in that regard.

  • Under labor practices also fall nondiscrimination, opportunities for people with disabilities, and training opportunities. While formally HR issues, socially responsible organizations can add value to these topics by making them part of regular topics of attention in an interdepartmental SR team.

CSR Case Study: Columbia Sportswear

Presenting Columbia Sportswear as an example of a company that engages in SR with special emphasis on labor practices was driven by the way the company is portrayed through multiple online channels. Before getting into the accolades, however, it should be stated that this company could evaluate the serious lack of diversity in its list of officers and directors, with 21 of the 22 officers being Caucasian and one Asian, and only four of these 22 officers being women, one of them being the Chairperson of the Board. These statistics give rise to a slight sense of discomfort as to why the company’s integrative labor practices did not reach the top echelons of the organization.

Nonetheless, Columbia Sportswear has made its way into some praiseworthy initiatives, such as developing a set of Standards of Manufacturing Practices” (Standards of Manufacturing Practices 2015), to which all collaborating suppliers and subcontractors have to comply. The company regularly monitors implementation of these standards, in which it delineates (a) having inspection rights on working premises of suppliers to inspect working conditions, (b) abandonment of any type of forced labor, (c) compliance with local laws on minimum labor ages, (d) respectful treatment of co-workers, including safe and harassment-free work environments, (e) dismissal of any kind of age, race, gender, ability, status, or other type of discrimination, (f) recognizing co-workers’ freedom of association toward improved circumstances, (g) compliance with legal wage laws as well as overtime rates, (h) humane and legally sound approaches in working hours and conditions, (i) observing decent safety, nourishment, and health conditions in the work premises, (j) compliance with applicable environmental laws, and (k) legal and ethical business conduct.

Aside from ensuring proper work environments in immediate and distant work environments, Columbia Sportswear is engaged in a number of uplifting labor-based projects, such as the HERproject, an organization that focuses on women empowerment all over the world. HERproject, operating in developing countries in South and Middle America, Africa, and Asia, supports low-income women through workplace-based programs, capacity building, and advocacy with business and government (Where HERProject Works N/A). Columbia Sportswear is also known to actively support the Skin Cancer Foundation and Mercy Corps, as well as organizations that focus on the wellness of children, especially in the community where its headquarters are located. Aside from the immediate human support aspect, Columbia Sportswear also contributes to large and small environmental organizations. Sports products that are out of the top quality range are donated to charity. Among the variety of socially responsible activities in which Columbia Sportswear engages, is its involvement in conservation and restoration of marine ecosystems. In 2010, Columbia Sportswear Company joined forces with the Ocean Foundation to protect and restore seagrass meadows. Seagrass is responsible for about 15% of total carbon storage in the ocean. Unfortunately, human activities have caused the loss of one-third of the world’s seagrass meadows, and Columbia Sportswear Company was the first company in the outdoor industry to acknowledge the importance of seagrass to marine ecosystems, our economy, and quality of life. Along with the Ocean Foundation, Columbia enables the education of thousands of online visitors about the importance of seagrass beds in protecting our oceans and our planet, as well as how to safely travel through them. While the initial donation was not large, about $10,000, the initiative can be applauded given its awareness importance (Columbia Sportswear Company Teams Up … 2010).

As was apparent with IKEA, maintaining an SR framework is rather comprehensive in nature, and Columbia Sportswear also demonstrates that. The company maintains solid approaches toward human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and development, and organizational governance. As part of its environmental cognizance efforts, Columbia Sportswear has started to apply energy-conscious structures at its Portland headquarters, such as a solar electric system that reduces the organization’s carbon emissions by 80 t per year (English 2013).

The Environment

Environmental concern has long passed the stage of being considered an overstatement. While, not even three decades ago, caring for the environment was perceived as emotional softness, governments of most countries around the world are now supervising the impact of organizations on the environment, and an increasing number of corporate leaders have started to acknowledge and embrace actions to comply and support legislation (Hopen 2010).

Depletion of natural resources has become a real challenge, which many of us experience on a daily basis. Corporations are facing immense moral dilemmas related to pollution, climate change, deprivation of human settlements, destruction of habitats, loss of species, and the collapse of entire ecosystems (American National Standard 2011). The continued growth of the human population is a major contributor to the above concerns, causing ever-increasing consumption, and, hence, even more environmental challenges. As trendsetters and employers of human populations worldwide, corporations have to take on a moral leadership role in reducing unsustainable patterns, not only with the aim to comply with legal regulations, but from the stance of creating improved standards toward environmental protection.

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

Because we all depend on the environment, the element of environmental responsibility cannot merely be classified as one for organizations, leaders, and quality professionals only. This SR element should be shared with co-workers at every level: they should be encouraged to engage in projects that warrant a reduced toll on the environment at the company level, but also at the personal level. Just as IKEA is encouraging its co-workers to be mindful about their transportation means to and from work, and Columbia Sportswear installed a solar electric system that reduces the organization’s carbon emissions, so can others also make environmental sensitivity part of the fabric of their organization. In regards to the environmental element, organizational leaders and quality professionals could therefore

  • Organize workshops for co-workers and other interested stakeholders (customers, suppliers) to rethink their own carbon footprint. Including co-workers in the leadership of these workshops might be a good idea, as this will boost morale and increase a sense of ownership.

  • Encourage co-workers to think of ways in which the company can be more environmentally responsible. A good way of moving into this direction is establishing an environmentally conscious task force, with members from various departments, but particularly the production units, and with a clear communication line to top management. The task force should not only focus on improvement of ongoing processes, but also on precautionary practices.

  • Identifying environmentally-oriented projects in the community, and encouraging co-worker teams to participate for a few days every year at full pay by the organization. Co-workers should also be allowed to submit suggestions of projects they would like to support.

CSR Case Study: Interface

In 1973, Ray Anderson founded Interface, a company that would grow out to become the world’s largest carpet tile provider. Little did he know, or even care at that time, that he would once be called “the greenest chief executive in America” and receive numerous awards for being a model environmentally conscious leader ($5 million commitment names … 2015). In the first two decades of its existence, Interface was highly profit oriented. Yes, Anderson complied with the legal prescriptions of corporate performance, but, as was customary in those days, was not really concerned about the environmental effects of his corporation’s activities. It all changed, however, when in 1994, a team of co-workers started forwarding him questions from customers about Interface’s environmental vision, which was completely absent at that time. As Anderson got confronted with these probing questions, he got confronted with a series of books, such as Paul Hawken’s “The Ecology of Commerce” and Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmael” about humanity’s destructive effects on planet earth, and they provoked a complete paradigm shift within Anderson. Anderson realized the immense crime so many businesses commit to our environment without being punished, and decided to become the change he wanted to see in the world. He started his mission of making carpets sustainably, something that only gradually transformed from a prior “impossibility” to an achievable dream, because carpet production, by default, is highly destructive to the environment (Langer 2011).

For the next 17 years, Anderson operated on many fronts to enhance awareness for environmental sustainability: He worked internally, with his co-workers and his suppliers, but also externally through presentations, books, and articles, to encourage other CEOs in doing the same. He got encouraged to do all this after reading that the same source that caused the destruction through a “take-make-waste” approach (business), could also be the initiator of a restoration of the crisis in the biosphere (Anderson 2007). The internal project toward increased environmental respect was implemented by a task force and was called “Climbing Mount Sustainability.” The plan consisted of seven focus points: (1) eliminating waste, (2) eliminating toxic substances from products, vehicles, and facilities, (3) operating facilities with renewable energy, (4) redesigning processes and products to solidify a more responsible production cycle, (5) enhancing efficiency to reduce waste and emissions, (6) creating a culture that integrates sustainable principles and engages all stakeholders therein, and (7) creating a new business model that demonstrates and supports the value of sustainability-based commerce (Anderson 2007).

Through the ups and downs in the sustainability journey, Interface has managed to move from using less than 1% of its raw materials from recycled and renewable sources, to 49% (Davis 2014). Not all efforts were rewarded. Some processes, which initially seemed exciting and progressive, turned out to be mere enlargers of the company’s environmental footprint, and had to be discontinued. Similarly, some miracles surfaced, of which the Interface team had never expected to see the light. One year before his passing, Anderson wrote a reflection on the role of businesses and industries in environmental sustainability, in which he related the achievements of Interface Inc. for the zero environmental footprint goal. At that time, Interface had decreased greenhouse gas emission by 44% and cut water use by 80%. Anderson strongly believed that business is the major cause and solution for environmental degradation. In his article, Anderson asserted that he would be one of the business people who would continue to exert efforts for sustainability (Anderson 2010).

Ray Anderson passed away in 2011, but Interface’s mission to become fully sustainable by 2020 is still fully in progress. Anderson’s incessant efforts to raise awareness on CSR during the last two decades of his life have not gone unnoticed. In 2013, 2 years after his passing, US Green Building Council (USGBC) instated the annual Radical Industrialism Award in 2013 in honor of Ray Anderson, for having been a corporate sustainability pioneer who was influential in the development of LEED green building certification. The award is sponsored by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, and is granted each year to a leader in the manufacturing sector whose commitment to and achievements in sustainability exemplify Ray’s vision, integrating sustainability into the very heart of their company (Colgate-Palmolive 2015).

Fair Operating Practices

Regardless of the type of market in which an organization performs, there will be other entities to collaborate with: partners, suppliers, contractors, customers, competitors, and the like. A company that operates from a fair practices standpoint engages in ethical and respectful market participation, free from corruptive and other types of malicious behavior (American National Standard 2011). Behaving morally is not always easy: Any business participant can attest to that. It is much easier to cut corners, deceive, or engage in false promotion. Yet, in the long run, the courage of doing the right thing pays off by way of a strong reputation, a respected position in the industry, and, most of all, the satisfying awareness of having done the right thing.

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

In order to maintain a clear view of the company’s performance, it is critical to meet on a regular basis (quarterly or bi-annually) and review the major strategic decisions that have been made, those that are about to be made, and how they interact with the company’s code of ethics. That being said, there has to be a code of ethics, which differs from the mission and vision statement. A code of ethics is a specific document that underscores the company’s moral beliefs. It is a living document that has to be assessed annually and, where needed, updated. As will be highlighted in the case below, having a task force that does this annual code of ethics review is a good idea. The task force should preferably consist of organizational members from different levels and departments, and preferably alternated annually. It may also be prudent to instate a different committee to assess the company’s SR attainment on an annual basis. Participation of or a direct communication line to top management is essential for these committees to perform effectively.

CSR Case Study: The SAS Institute

The SAS Institute is a privately held software service corporation, founded in 1976 by Jim Goodnight, and located in Cary, North Carolina. The company is the largest independent vendor in the business intelligence market, with sales subsidiaries in about 140 countries. What makes this company so special is the inception of an SR program, long before this term entered the buzz-word spectrum. SAS has been consistent in its efforts to achieve a three-prong leadership base: (1) being the best employer, partner, and vendor to its stakeholders, (2) being committed to high ethical standards in all its dealings, and (3) being proactive in discovering and developing ways to improve in all areas that matter.

It should therefore come as no surprise that this company holds an exceptional reputation and continues to score high on the lists of best companies to work for and most ethical companies to work with. SAS maintains durable relationships with its suppliers, both direct and indirect, and prides itself in high moral standards toward all constituents: colleagues, customers, suppliers, and competitors. As an example of its ongoing efforts in that regard, SAS has an anticorruption program that includes an online anticorruption course for all new co-workers and certain third parties. In a similar vein, the company educates direct stakeholders about bribery, gift giving, fair marketing, and donation policies.

SAS maintains a CSR Task Force, in which co-workers from different departments serve. The task force meets every other month and discusses everything that is important in light of the company’s SR behavior. There is a direct communication line with top management to ensure effectiveness and swift action. The company ensures proper preparation of new employees, as well as some contract workers, by requiring some or all of the following training: Code of Ethics, Information Security, Export Controls Awareness, Respect in the Workplace, Global Anti-Corruption, and Privacy and Data Protection for Global Companies. Additionally, all employees and some contract workers have to take refresher ethics training (SAS Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2016).

Another useful approach from SAS is its active participation in public policy discussions, especially those related to the industry in which the company operates. This involvement keeps the SAS team on top of new developments, and positively affects the long-term decisions being made (SAS Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2016). The SAS Code of Ethics was recently updated as a result of its annual review process (SAS Code of Ethics 2016). SAS Institute holds the proud significance of being a pioneer in two critical fields: One is its source of service, analytics, and the other is on workplace culture. The attractiveness of the SAS Institute for prospective employees is the fact that the company ensures meaningful work through excellent leadership and a world-class work environment. Since Fortune started its “100 Best Companies to Work for,” the SAS Institute has consistently been part of the list. The fact that the company’s leaders understand the direct correlation between SAS Institute’s constructive employee culture and its uninterrupted business success, manifested in 40 years of incessant revenue growth and profitability, may serve as an indication that this corporation is one to keep on the radar when responsible corporate behavior is of interest.

Consumer Issues

A stakeholder group that is particularly important for existence and growth of any corporation is its consumer base. While this seems to be clear, it has come to light time and again that this group is oftentimes gravely betrayed and exposed to products or services that reduce rather than enhance the quality of consumers’ lives. The SR element pertaining to consumer issues focuses on safeguarding consumers’ well-being through fair and factual marketing, protecting their health and safety, ensuring sustainable consumption, providing decent service and support, protecting their privacy, providing them access to services needed, and enhancing their awareness through education (What are the core subjects of social responsibility N/A).

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

Consumer well-being is an issue that cannot be achieved in silos. It has to be a collective and continuous effort, simultaneously applied in multiple organizational layers. Some examples of these actions:

  • Enabling communication mechanisms from product and service consumers with the company’s leadership or quality team.

  • Educating the marketing department on fair and honest information to consumers, and verifying this through assessment on a regular basis. This assessment can be done by the SR committee.

  • Encouraging co-workers at all levels to interact with consumers, and create a communication line (possibly monthly sessions) in which co-workers are encouraged to share their viewpoints, ideas, and lessons learned.

CSR Case Study: Trader Joe’s

Trader Joe’s easily comes to mind when thinking of a company that invests efforts in its consumers. After all, this company is known for taking note of customers’ suggestions and stocking stores with requested products (Couch 2013). In addition, Trader Joe’s has been a trendsetter in placing allergy labels on products to warn consumers, and giving local products a boost even before they reach the national market. The company is not a health food store chain by name but has been highly responsive to consumers’ requests for eco-friendlier, responsibly harvested food. Trader Joe’s is also involved in taking care of the less fortunate in its communities: products that are no longer suitable for sale but still good for consumption are donated by each store’s designated donor coordinator to food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens for further distribution (Brown 2013).

A review of Trader Joe’s CSR practices shows that the company has more of a localized than a general approach in this, because it heavily focuses on local communities for its SR-related activities. “Trader Joe’s CSR practices are centered [on] Michael Porter’s concept of creating value for both the business and the consumer” (Trader Joe’s LA 346 2017). Even though this store consists of more than 350 stores nationwide, it is still privately held, and information is therefore not readily accessible. Yet, there are some great things about this company that are well-known within the community, for instance, that Trader Joe’s does not charge slotting fees for product display on its shelves, unlike most grocery stores (Martin 2015). The savings are shared with the consumer. Co-workers’ salaries are within satisfactory ranges, with decent benefits. Trader Joe’s is also known to refrain from advertising, and only distributing its “fearless flyer” in local communities as a means of promoting its products. Keeping such expenses down also leads to savings shared with consumers. Aside from plain donations, the company also participates in an annual ladies’ golf tournament, securing donations to three Florida food banks for each “birdie” (Trader Joe’s LA 346 2017).

A 2013 consumer study conducted by Market Force, in which 6,645 men and women in the United States and Canada were interviewed, found that Trader Joe scored higher than any other grocery chain in regards to customer satisfaction. Participants to this consumer study submitted various reasons for their notion of satisfaction at Trader Joe’s, varying from the stores’ atmosphere and fast checkouts, to cleanliness, courteous staff, merchandise selection, and accurate pricing. In particular, it was the company’s atmosphere and courteous staff that made the golden difference for Trader Joe’s (Anderson 2013). DiSalvo (2015) adds some more reasons for Trader Joe’s to be considered consumers’ favorite: Sensible prices and fresh groceries, and the stores’ design, which makes a happy-home-like impression with its combinations of cedar, brick, and bamboo. Just like other authors, DiSalvo also discusses the employees at Trader Joe’s, whom he describes as a “certain kind of person”: People who are truly engaged, and who perform cross-functionally: they are not limited to one task or one department. They really seem to care, and they exude friendliness. They do so, because they are treated well. They eat and drink in their workplace and are encouraged to try the new products, which turns them into passionate fans of those products, and therefore, authentic, infectious sales people (DiSalvo 2015). All of the above may explain why Trader Joe’s, with its workforce of 8,000, is listed as number 16 on Forbes’ 2016 list of “America’s Best Employers.”

Due to insufficient direct report from the company, we can only make a cautious assessment regarding Trader Joe’s consumer issues strategies; however, there are still enough testimonials available to state that, in recent years, Trader Joe’s has displayed an outstanding attitude toward consumer involvement, protection, and support.

Community Involvement and Development

Inasmuch as human beings have an interdependent relationship with their community, so too do organizations. Today, it is generally understood and accepted that companies are not only existing for the purpose of making money off their customers, but that they should also be involved in their communities (American National Standard 2011). An organization that participates in development and growth of its community is generally more respected and appreciated, hence, more patronized. Community involvement and development are therefore perceived as important elements of a company’s SR. This element can focus on multiple aspects of community well-being, such as education, culture, health, employment, wealth creation, and social investment (What are the core subjects of social responsibility N/A).

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

The suggestions presented below were listed earlier (see under “The Environment”), which demonstrates that multiple elements of a company’s SR can be addressed in one organizational step. For instance,

  • Encourage co-workers to think of projects in which the company can participate. Assigning a community-conscious task force, with members from various departments, would be highly constructive.

  • Identifying developmental initiatives and projects in the community, and encouraging co-worker teams to participate for a few days every year at full pay by the organization. Co-workers should also be allowed to submit suggestions of projects they would like to support.

CSR Case Study: Patagonia

Providing co-workers the opportunity to engage in community involvement with full pay is exactly what Patagonia is doing. When, the Native Fish Society took on a project to secure the conservation of wild native fish in the Pacific Northwest, Patagonia co-workers volunteered in various ways, such as assisting scientists and speaking with visiting groups. The Patagonia co-workers received their full salary and benefits while volunteering in this community project (Scott 2012).

Patagonia, Inc. was founded in 1973, and it focuses predominantly on high-end outdoor clothing. The company’s active membership in environmental movements is at least as well known as the products it sells on the consumer market. Performing in the apparel industry, Patagonia’s leadership team seems to be well-aware of the sweatshop reputation this industry holds. The company’s website provides ample information about its steps against the long, underpaid, and unhealthy work-hours people invest in this industry. Patagonia claims good pay, decent benefits, flex time, paid volunteerism, and subsequently low turnover for its immediate workforce of nearly two thousand people. Aware of the problems that can rise with subcontractors, the company carefully scrutinizes each new factory it considers for collaborative practices. For that purpose, Patagonia has instated two teams: a special Social/Environmental Responsibility team and a Quality team, both of which holding the power to veto a decision to work with a new factory.

Vividly involved in its industry, Patagonia is a major advocate for improved working conditions for garment workers, and pays additional premiums to workers in participating factories in order to help increase wages or engage in community development. Similarly, Patagonia advocates improved labor conditions in the supply chains within its industry. The company has also been instrumental in the Fair Labor Association’s Fire Safety Initiative in 2013.

Agrawal (2017) underscores the importance of corporations to be in tune with the perceptions of Gen Z, and step up their CSR performance and authenticity, as this generation distinguishes itself from all its predecessors in its strong views on companies as members of society that should not only think of themselves but also of others. Agrawal presents some examples of great companies, who care for more than just the bottom line, and thereby includes Patagonia. Aside from operating as a premier outdoor brand, Patagonia distinguishes itself from competitors through considering the bigger picture. Customers of this company are outdoor types, who love nature, and want to know that their products come from companies that try to do the right thing. In Patagonia’s case, its customers are very curious about what the company does for the planet. It therefore matters a lot that Patagonia pays fair wages to employees, engages in proper environmental conduct, and focuses on encouraging the restoration of the outdoors (Agrawal 2017).

Organizational Governance

While frequently listed as the first element in the SR range, we kept organizational governance as the final section in this chapter, because of its overarching nature. Organizational governance is the mental engine that drives an organization toward achieving its goals. It is the foundation of all decisions made in the organization, but also of all strategic changes that the organization decides to implement. The overall quality of life and success rate for any organization, and therefore also of its stakeholders, ultimately depends on the strategic decisions of its management team. These decisions pertain to (a) tolerable risks, (b) quality of output, (c) process consistency, and (d) SR approaches in an increasingly complex world (Robinson 2013). When a management system embeds quality at the root of all its practices (Duckworth 2014), good governance is practiced. The cultural, political, economic, and social contexts in which the organization operates, along with its size and type, are also great determinants of an organization’s governance. Because of its immense influence on the way an organization is steered, organizational governance can be seen as the core of a company’s SR implementation.

How Organizations, Leaders, and Quality Professionals can Fulfill this Element

Organizational governance, due to its strategic nature, has to begin with the leadership team. This is the team that determines the direction of the organization, so the initiative to formulate socially responsible goals is their primary task. Once the foundation is established, the leadership team could assign a governance team to supervise and update the organizations governance statements and performance.

CSR Case Study: The Starbucks Company

Starbucks’ governance statement (Starbucks Corporation 2015) highlights a number of critical issues in regards to the company’s SR performance, from the requirement to maintain diversity in background and perspectives to the maintenance of three board committees, one of them being the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. This committee has to make sure, among other things, that membership of all board and sub-committees alternates.

As is the case with all the companies presented in this chapter, the Starbucks Company has elevated SR compliance into a culture that is embedded in all its practices. Not only has Starbucks, as CEO Howard Schultz presents it, reinvented itself from a coffee-business serving people to a people-business serving coffee (Talpau and Boscor 2011); the company has displayed innovative thinking by conjuring up new consumer demands in what could be considered a declining industry. Starbucks has redefined coffee as a beverage, and has restructured the locations in which it is consumed (Rindova and Fombrun 2001), while simultaneously working on increasing SR performance. Some highlights in Starbucks’ SR approaches are (a) there are full health insurance benefits and stock awards for part-time co-workers, (b) co-workers are treated with proper dignity and are granted ample career opportunities within the company, and (c) the company’s impact on the community is carefully scrutinized (Outram 2014). The fact that Schultz retook control of the corporation after several years of having stepped down speaks volumes as well: contrary to the usual insatiable quest for expansion among companies, Schultz intervened in 2009 to slow down unbridled growth and help Starbucks refocus on doing what is right. In early 2017, Schultz stepped down again and handed over the reins of the company to Kevin Johnson.

As a way of community involvement, the Starbucks foundation has been supporting a campaign called “Create Jobs for USA,” which focuses on funding job development in deprived areas (Saporito 2012). Like Trader Joe’s, the Starbucks company refrains from expensive advertising campaigns, and has been stepping up its fair trade practices in recent years. The company heavily relies on synergistic partnerships, as stated in their annual report: “The first three stakeholder relationships discussed in their annual report are – in this order – partners (co-workers), customers, and coffee farmers” (Kleinrichert 2008). Starbucks is also a member of the Free Trade Coffee (FT) alliance, and even though the percentage of free trade coffee this company processes is still rather small, the effect of this membership has been a great stimulus to coffee growers and leads to rising numbers of members in the FT registry.

Starbucks is well aware of its customers’ (mostly Gen Z members) preferences: it shifts the way drinks and food are treated, but even more, the way employees are treated (Agrawal 2017).

In an overview of Starbucks’ SR strategy, Vandevelt (2015) identifies three pillars upon which the company performs: Community, Ethical Sourcing, and the Environment. In regards to community involvement, the first pillar, Starbucks develops stores that partner with local nonprofits, thus collaborating in offering services to meet local needs. Starbucks’ nonprofit partners receive $0.05 to $0.15 per transaction. In addition, the company aims to hire about 10,000 veterans and military by 2018. Youth training opportunities are high on the company’s priority list, so much so, that there is a Starbucks nonprofit foundation specializing in furthering community initiatives. In regards to Ethical Sourcing, the second pillar, the Starbucks Corporation commits itself to purchasing its products from ethical farmers and suppliers. In regards to the Environment, the third pillar, Starbucks perceives and promotes the earth as its most important business partner, thus ensuring an ongoing reduction process in environmental impact. Starbucks stores focus on recycling and conserving water and energy, and pursue strategies that address climate change on a global level. The fact that this three-pillar SR strategy works can be concluded from the company’s overall customer ratings: about 93% of consumers perceive the Starbucks Corporation as positive. Due to a higher than average employee satisfaction rate, the turnover at Starbucks is relatively lower than that of its competitors (Vandevelt 2015).

Figure 1 below provides an impression of how an organization could implement the elements of CSR, discussed in this chapter. Important is Strategic Management’s formulation and buy-in of a statement of governance and a code of ethics. These two critical documents will have to be developed in collaboration with an interdepartmental SR team, as well as a quality team. The interdepartmental SR team should consist of department managers, so that there is broad support and understanding of the motivations and values to which the corporation will adhere. The interdepartmental SR team will serve as a liaison with the quality team, a stakeholder involvement team, and potential external experts, attracted to specific areas of CSR implementation. This interdepartmental SR team will carry general responsibility for the seven SR elements in the organization: Human Rights, Labor Practices, The Environment, Fair Operations, Consumer Issues, Community Development and Involvement, and Organizational Governance. It might be useful for the company’s ongoing CSR performance to also create meaning pods, supervised by the department managers team, and focused on continued review and fine-tuning of the meaningful performance of the organization. The department managers team may be the appropriate body to carefully co-monitor the company’s human rights and labor practices performance. It is also prudent to have a representative of Human Resources and a Quality Professional involved in the entire CSR implementation structure, possibly participating in the interdepartmental SR team and the quality team.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Embedding SR into the organizational culture

Full size image

Finally, it would be effective to instate a Brainstorm and Community Involvement Task Force, supervised by the stakeholder involvement team, and supporting efforts in the areas of The Environment, Fair Operations, Consumer Issues, and Community Development and Involvement.

Conclusion

As can be derived from this overview, companies that make SR part of their organizational culture usually emerge as leaders in their industries (Robinson et al. 2012). A bird’s eye view on the implications of SR within the ISO 26000 scope, as demonstrated by the companies presented in this chapter, shows that a solid SR strategy leads to a number of aspects (ASQ and Manpower Professional 2011) that make up for perfect, accountable, and recurring business excellence:

  • Better decision making and more responsible overall management.

    • IKEA’s integration of economic, environmental, and social perspectives epitomizes this tendency, as can also be gathered from the way the company chooses to define itself: as a service provider rather than a furniture store.

    • Similarly, Columbia Sportswear’s series of moral rules captured in its overall management construct, and expressed through its “Standards of Manufacturing Practices,” demonstrate responsible management practices on a broad scale.

    • Interface’s founder, Ray Anderson, also ensured responsible decision-making and better overall management when he steered the company onto the “Climbing Mount Sustainability” path, thereby including a plethora of stakeholders.

    • The SAS Institute demonstrates responsible decision-making and better overall management through its steadfast focus on being the best employer, partner, and vendor to its stakeholders; being committed to high ethical standards in all dealings, and being proactive in discovering and developing ways to improve in all areas that matter.

    • Trader Joe’s responsible management and decision-making processes manifest themselves in the products it delivers, the way employees and customers are treated, and the care this corporation gives to the less fortunate in its communities.

    • Patagonia, Inc. demonstrates this quality through its ability to see the bigger picture: having a very outdoors oriented customer base, Patagonia is aware of the importance of nature and focuses on encouraging the restoration of the outdoors.

    • The Starbucks Company has also displayed great overall management by focusing on major issues to assist the economy, varying from establishing synergistic partnerships, to offering employment for veterans, military, and disabled individuals, as well as its three performance pillars: Community, Ethical Sourcing, and the Environment.

  • Greater trust from the public due to a better reputation.

    • IKEA has established longitudinal trust from the global customer community by living up to its founder’s vision, “to create a better daily life for the many people” and thereby focusing on diversity as a value to signify the company’s contribution to the best of the many people in a number of ways.

    • Columbia Sportswear has increased the trust from consumers through its engagement in labor-based projects, such as the HERproject, an organization that focuses on women empowerment all over the world, and its support to several other organizations that address concerning issues in society such as cancer, children’s wellness, and the environment.

    • Interface continues to enhance the community’s trust by implementing Ray Anderson’s vision to produce as sustainably as possible, and trying to encourage others to do the same.

    • The SAS Institute holds an exceptional reputation and continues to score high on the lists of best companies to work for and most ethical companies to work with, due to its three-prong leadership base: (1) being the best employer, partner, and vendor to its stakeholders, (2) being committed to high ethical standards in all its dealings, and (3) being proactive in discovering and developing ways to improve in all areas that matter.

    • Trader Joe’s has also achieved its reputation of trustworthiness through its responsiveness to consumers’ requests for eco-friendlier, responsibly harvested food, and through taking care of the less fortunate in its communities.

    • Patagonia, being focused on outdoors apparel, has won trust of its customers and other stakeholders through its active membership in environmental movements and its careful scrutiny of each new factory it considers for collaborative practices.

    • The Starbucks Company has also won major trust through its community involvement, by establishing stores that partner with local nonprofits, thus collaborating in offering services to meet local needs.

  • Increased competitive strength. The brief overview of the seven corporations discussed in this chapter demonstrates that doing the right thing, and going the extra mile toward safeguarding the important things for communities, the environment, and the earth as a whole, may bring some extra expenses and efforts along, but also yield greater rewards and admiration from global stakeholders.

  • More constructive relationships with stakeholders.

    • IKEA perceives its physical products more as a platform for a service experience, resulting in customer value. The company has been active in supporting vulnerable groups to strengthen themselves and become economically and socially self-reliant. It is very vocal about banning child labor and is strongly involved in UNICEF projects, but also in self-initiated endeavors. The IKEA Foundation partners with Reach for Change, a nonprofit organization, on improving children’s lives through social innovation.

    • Columbia Sportswear’s earlier discussed “Standards of Manufacturing Practices” does the same, as it ultimately focuses on stakeholder well-being, and encompasses areas such as abandonment of any type of forced labor, compliance with local laws on minimum labor ages, respectful treatment of co-workers, including safe and harassment-free work environments, and dismissal of any kind of age, race, gender, ability, status, or other type of discrimination.

    • Interface takes care of its stakeholders through its seven focus points that consider the environment, health awareness, reduction of waste, increased efficiency, and sustainable business performance.

    • The SAS Institute maintains durable relationships with its suppliers, both direct and indirect, and prides itself in high moral standards toward all constituents: colleagues, customers, suppliers, and competitors. Its anticorruption program includes an online anticorruption course for all new co-workers and certain third parties.

    • Trader Joe’s places allergy labels on products to warn consumers, and gives local products a boost even before they reach the national market. It is highly responsive to consumers’ requests for eco-friendlier, responsibly harvested food. It heavily focuses on local communities for its SR-related activities.

    • Patagonia provides co-workers the opportunity to engage in community involvement with full pay. The company’s website provides ample information about its steps against the long, underpaid, and unhealthy work hours people invest in this industry. It is a major advocate for improved working conditions for garment workers, and pays additional premiums to workers in participating factories in order to help increase wages or engage in community development. Similarly, Patagonia advocates improved labor conditions in the supply chains within its industry.

    • The Starbucks Company grants full health insurance benefits and stock awards to part-time co-workers, treats co-workers with proper dignity, and carefully scrutinizes its impact on the community. The Starbucks foundation has been supporting a campaign called “Create Jobs for USA,” which focuses on funding job development in deprived areas. Starbucks is also a member of the Free Trade Coffee (FT) alliance.

  • Stronger innovations due to the connection with a broader base of stakeholders. The fact that the seven reviewed companies continue to perform successfully in an increasing competitive world, and manage to reinvent themselves time and again, demonstrates their potential to innovate through their broad stakeholder base.

  • Improved employee retention, morale, and loyalty due to an increased emphasis on worker safety and well-being. This factor is one that also exudes in the reviewed company’s approaches: From IKEA’s encouragement to employees to take ownership in problem-solving, to the SAS Institute’s HR practices that accommodate employees’ needs optimally in order to enhance their job satisfaction, and from Trader Joe’s employee motivation to take on any task, thus developing ownership, to Starbucks’ conscious benefits and stockholder’s options, even for part-time employees.

  • Increased fairness in trade and elimination of corrupt practices. The care with which each of the seven reviewed corporations formulated their SR practices also demonstrates, sometimes verbatim, and at other times implied, that trade fairness and corruption elimination are critical in their business routines.

  • Solid bottom line thanks to improved effectiveness and efficiency. Even though the seven reviewed corporations undoubtedly have their ups and downs in revenue influx, their rankings on various lists, along with their continued expansions and innovations, demonstrate that their bottom line is sound, particularly because most of these companies consider their bottom line within a broader scope than just financial.

  • Greater longevity of the organization due to its sustainable approaches. Each of the reviewed corporation has a track record of successful existence that spans over several decades, which is evidence of their longevity, to be credited to their sustainable approaches.

  • Better social ties with individuals, civic, and commercial entities overall. In several of the points above, the splendid social ties of the seven corporations reviewed have also been underscored.

Waiting until SR can be proven in hard, compartmentalized numbers of profits may be an erroneous mindset, just like the notion that SR is just another episode that will sooner or later fade away. “SR is here to stay, and organizations will either deal with it or SR will deal with them,” a reality that may be the foundational reason why “more organizations are looking to move SR beyond simple public relations” (ASQs New SR Integration Guide 2014). Because of its comprehensive nature, it is not simple to delineate where exactly the benefits of SR lie. However, the overall statistics speak volumes: companies that seriously engage in SR find this culture to not only be beneficial to their bottom line, but also to their reputation, and to all their stakeholders. Not to be underestimated: their leaders also feel better about what they do, and, ultimately, that is the greatest reward one can desire in life.

Cross-References