Body Shop and Boots: The Approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility, Essay Example

Business Response and Research Paper

Part 1:

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Role that the Body Shop and Boots Take

The Body Shop, owned by Anita Roddick, was first launched as a small family business at Brighton UK during the year 1976. It was defined by Roddick as a basic source of their family needs as she was trying to raise her children through this particular business. Her products, coming from organic sources, raised attention among buyers in the market and have increased curiosity among the players in the industry of personal care in the country. Although there were some who doubted the products offered by the organization, those who have tried some of their items such as that of the tea tree oil, the jojoba oil-sourced products and many others usually decide to come back for more hence allowing Roddick to establish a practicable group of loyal customers.

However, the beginning of the company was not at all that smooth. There were controversies as to what the company should be named and how it apparently copies some of its products and its catalogues from other organizations in the same industry. Roddick responded to this matter through creating a packaging trademark of her own of which she hand writes all the labels and puts in separate descriptions of the ingredients used for the manufacturing of each product. This approach serves as a form of health-information for her loyal buyers which at the same time gain their attention which Body Shop solely received apart from its competitors.

As the business grew, another branch has been opened at a former garage in McGlinn, where the owner let the Roddicks borrow at least £4,000 for restarting a new branch in the area[1]. The primary campaign that Roddick used was that of information sharing. She made sure that the consumers know what they are buying and why they are buying it. During the marketing campaigns, Roddick did so much to do away with expensive endorsements. Instead, she believed that it is the society’s concern for their health that could best work its way in promoting the products that they are offering the market with.

The idea of establishing a business within the foundation of “profit-with-principle” is something that Roddick decided to stick with all through time. Her belief on the fact that she is not only operating a business for her own benefit but instead for the benefit of her clients proved to be her stepping stone in getting both the attention and appreciation of the people from the buying sector. As the business and its name became more established in the passing years, the Body Shop gained its strength and reliable reputation to open up another branch outside the UK. Targeting the Belgian market, the first Body Shop franchise opened in Brussels, Belgium. This branch was opened for service to the public in the late 1970’s. Around 1980’s the business got the aggression and confidence it needed to penetrate the US market[2]. The stock market of UK then realized and recognized its growth at 95 pence. The fast paced development of the business assisted in establishing a name that cannot be denied of its worth.

Along side these successes from the point of opening towards the point of functioning well for the society that it hopes to serve, the Body Shop recognized its corporate social responsibilities properly. One way by which they do so is the fact that the company campaigns for the utilization of organic beauty products that are both helpful to the skin and the user’s morale while being supportive of the environmental protection that the company has sworn its responsibility to. Besides this particular process of providing attention for the betterment of the environment, the company also embraces its role in the society through engaging in social organizations such as the Greenpeace during their “Save the Whales Campaign”. Another alliance established by the company is with Friends of the Earth in 1990. It has also engaged in campaign procedures directed towards the respect for human rights hence creating a more refined manner of treating its employees and providing them with the benefits they are supposedly entitled of receiving.

All these hard work to support social development and progress has gained both praise and criticism from their competitors and their own stakeholders. While some advertisers accuse the Body Shop of using media to present themselves rather supportive of the environment, most of the business’ stakeholders and investors say that they are spending too much on social work that at some point, their values as partners are not being returned properly to their pockets. Alongside this issue came the emergence of new competitors in the industry both in the local and the international scope. Relatively, Roddick and her team of business experts tried to divert the situation, however the growing impact of globalization is beginning to affect their operational profits already.

True, every organization has its own stakeholders. At some point, the holistic approach by which the values of these individuals and/or groups are responded to makes an organization more established and well recognized by the public and those that are enjoined within its business development[3]. The balance on how an organization views its responsibility towards its own members and towards the members of the public society is a crucial point in establishing a good name that could be well recognized in the market. This is the reason why managing both the resources and activities of the organization is an important aspect of balancing the manners by which the business compellingly proceed to fulfil its sworn duties[4].

Although the Body Shop, in its many years of operation, has been proven effective in consistently responding to its social responsibilities as a corporate organization, it could be analyzed that not being able to respond to the values of its own people is still a shortcoming on the part of the business’ administrational management system. While the society does expect so much from the company, its personal stakeholders such as its investors and employees also deserve to receive the best benefits from a supposedly refined system of business operations embraced by the Body Shop.

PART 2: ‘An organization’s only responsibility is to make profit’ Discuss in relation to issues of corporate governance. (Response Discussion)

The consideration over corporate responsibility is a crucial aspect of creating an organization that is both well-recognized by the society and a well-defined entity in the field of business industry that the organization is enjoined with. True to its sense, the primary motivation of any established business entity is to operate for profit [otherwise, it would not be considered as a business but a charity organization][5]. Providing services and/or products and gaining monetary returns from it is what the primary aim of establishing a business is. At present, business owners know of this basic fact and are thus using it as a stepping stone of organizational confidence for their businesses as they entail to accept the need to grow and manage their resources towards development. However, as an entity that becomes a member of a single or more communities within the local or the international range of operation, it could be analyzed that companies and/or business organizations have the responsibility to respect and provide for the values that are most important to the societies they hope to serve. Likely, their buyers or clients would come from the communities surrounding them, hence taking care of the values that these buyers have is also a form of taking care of the profit that the business organizations ensure for themselves to receive from the public.

In this regard, it is then essential to recognize that corporate social responsibilities are established based on the principle of “give-and-take” system that is expected to create a more sustainable and effective society that is able to perform well alongside each other [especially on the part concerning the buyers and the seller in the market. Realizing these particular responsibilities provide the business operators a chance to define their name and reputation in the face of public criticism. This will then improve their reputation as an organization not only concerned for its personal gains, but also towards that of the welfare of the buying public.

However, there are instances when such matter becomes a vivid cause of division as to how business operators ought to handle their business objectives alongside their social responsibilities. First to consider in relation to this matter is the fact that when the thought of corporate responsibility comes into mind, it does not only involve the attention that the business operators are placing upon the process by which they provide for the clients or the buyers in the society[6]. Corporate social responsibility simply includes both the internal and external facets of development that the organization is entangled with. Notably, this means that the attention of establishing such recognition of responsibility should be handled from an inward towards an outward approach. The employees and investors as well as other personal beneficiaries of the business are the internal factors of the said society. Providing a beneficial system that would allow the members of the organization to realize their worth as members of the business is an important aspect of business growth. On the other end, the society and the buyers coming from it are the external factors of the society mentioned[7]. This means that when it comes to serving the values of the people in the communities they are enjoined with, business administrators should be careful enough in not overthrowing the values of the internal society of the organization for the sake of responding to the needs of the community.

Take for example the very positional operation of the Body Shop regarding this matter. While the administration is busy establishing a reputation that would make it easier for their clients to realize how much they care for nature and their clients as well, their investors argue that they are the ones being set aside in line with such a form of campaign. Of course, there is nothing wrong when an organization decides to embrace the possibility of providing what is best for the society. Anita Roddrick, being a mother herself, could relate to the needs of the people, the issues that bind them and their concern. At some point, this attitude from her creates an extensive effect on how she deals with her people and the need to comply with the responsibilities she has sworn for the society as she signed the permit of her business to operate in the market.

This example from the Body Shop shows a classical example on how the imbalance of attention from the administrators of a business organization could ruin the reputation that an organization hopes to take good care of. True, there could be some distinct proof to the accusation of some of the company’s competitors that Body Shop is simply using its relative connection to several social organizations as a form of press release. Nonetheless, it could not be denied that it is also through this approach that the company gains a good sense of understanding as to what its real worth is to the industry. Questioning the motives of the operators of the business is not as important as examining whether or not she [Anita Roddick] and her staff of business experts are able to balance out resources to respond to such responsibilities to the external stake holders of the organization while having ample resources left to completely define their reputation in responding to the values of their internal stakeholders.

Business organizations are primarily dependent on the idea that they should be able to gain profit as much as they can from the operations that they embrace. Setting a culture that is profit-centred however may cause business entities to lose track of the fact that they too have a responsibility towards the people who supposedly patronage them and their products in the communities they operate in. The social system thrives in a give-and-take operation hence insisting that if one organization decides to operate in a particular community, it must be able to stand alongside the rules and regulations that the community has for its residents as well as for its other members. Making the relationship mutual, businesses and the buying market are expected to agree on a common ground that provides them both the values that they deserve to receive from the other. It is always helpful for business organizers to make sure that they understand the clauses of business operation that a community recognizes before they actually sign in a contract that places them in effective operation in the chosen area.

Gaining profit is the core reason behind business creation. Profit gain however instigates a set of responsibilities that must be given attention to accordingly by the administrators. Failure to do so shall jeopardize the acceptable position that the business hopes to gain in front of the buying market. It should be noted that the people in the community and their decision to appreciate or patronage a particular brand of product is affected so much by the way that they envision the role of the company owning the said brand. Most often than not, their decisions are embedded on how much they see the organizations giving much attention to their welfare as buyers. Companies gain strength from both their inner and outer support system; which means that as they serve the needs of their clients, they should not forget that their members, staffs and investors also have expectations they have to meet. Balancing such operation is a hard matter to consider especially if an organization focuses on expanding its business further[8]. Relatively, it is with keen observation as to how each stakeholder of the organization is given attention to that the growth of any business is expected to pick up from.

Establishing a business from a small-scale approach is a stairway towards expanding into a more refined system of operation once the business gains attention from the market. Gaining a reputation of being socially responsible is a crucial part of building such system of market recognition. Alongside with it, as the business expands, it is also essential that the operation members of the organization expand in number as well. Because of this, the responsibility of the administrator to initiate a division of departments that would handle internal and external concerns separately becomes necessary. Making an intuitive decision in placing individuals or groups of business experts to attend to the needs of the external and internal stakeholders of the organization in a separate manner is expected to create a balancing effect that would assure the company of receiving good reputation from its market and its internal members.

As globalization pose several challenges to emerging businesses, administrators of these organizations should know how to operate in accordance with the resources they have, be innovative enough to handle new responsibilities not only towards their clients but also towards their own people. Attending to these matters shall strengthen the establishment of the organization that is built to last for a long time of survival in the international market.

References

Carroll, A.; A. Buchholtz (2006). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 6th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Carroll, A. (1998). “The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship”. Business and Society Review. September, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 1–7

Cavett-Goodwin, David (2007-12-03). “Making the Case for Corporate Social Responsibility”. Cultural Shifts. Retrieved 2008-03-07.

Clarkson, M. (1995). “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance“. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 92–117.

Davis, K.; R. Blomstrom (1975). Business and Society: Environment and Responsibility, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Davis, Kevin R. (2007). “The Compliance Racket”. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53 (20): B11.

Feltus, C.; Petit, M. (2009). “Building a Responsibility Model Including Accountability, Capability and Commitment“, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ( IEEE ), Fukuoka, 2009. Building a Responsibility Model Including Accountability, Capability and Commitment

Fombrun, C. (2000). “The value to be found in corporate reputation“. Financial Times, December 4, 2000.

Griffin, J.; Mahon, J. (1997). “The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate”. Business and Society 36: 5–31.

The Body Shop: Social Responsibility or Sustained Greenwashing? http://www.oikos-international.org/fileadmin/oikos-international/international/Case_competition/Inspection_copy_ICFAI2007.pdf. (Retrieved on March 5, 2012).

[1] The Body Shop: Social Responsibility or Sustained Greenwashing? http://www.oikos-international.org/fileadmin/oikos-international/international/Case_competition/Inspection_copy_ICFAI2007.pdf. (Retrieved on March 5, 2012).

[2] The Body Shop: Social Responsibility or Sustained Greenwashing? http://www.oikos-international.org/fileadmin/oikos-international/international/Case_competition/Inspection_copy_ICFAI2007.pdf. (Retrieved on March 5, 2012).

[3] Davis, Kevin R. (2007). “The Compliance Racket”. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53 (20): B11.

[4] Davis, K.; R. Blomstrom (1975). Business and Society: Environment and Responsibility, New York: McGraw-Hill.

[5] Davis, K.; R. Blomstrom (1975). Business and Society: Environment and Responsibility, New York: McGraw-Hill.

[6] Carroll, A. (1998). “The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship”. Business and Society Review. September, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 1–7

[7] Clarkson, M. (1995). “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance”. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 92–117.

[8] Carroll, A.; A. Buchholtz (2006). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 6th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.