"Negative" social responsibility. As what I have said in the pervious post, it is responsibility by not doing things that will be harmful to someone or something. It can also be a responsibility arising from a disaster that could have been avoided if the proper procedures were done. Almost all examples of this type of resposibility are associated with corporations. It can create a positive impact or a negative impact, or even both, to a corporation.
One example was with Johnson & Johnson. They had an incident in which it was reported that there were Tylenol bottles that had cyanide in it. Upon knowing that, they immediately recalled all those bottles and had to make a new design to make them tamper-resistant. They had to lose money to be socially responsible. Even though that had to happen, they are now recognized as one of the most trusted brands in the world because they care more about their customers than their pockets. The exact opposite scenario happened when Union Carbide made the news on the infamous Bhopal Disaster in India on 1984 where tons of methyl isocyanate were accidentally released into the atmosphere which caused plenty of deaths and a big rise on cancer and various other diseases in the area. Instead of being responsible for their mistakes, they even hid the true amount of contamination on the area and claimed that they cleaned out the area even though there are still traces left. As a result, the company received plenty of criticisms. The more popular example is the melamin scandal of China. Not only did it affect China, but it also affected plenty of countries around the world. Right now it's not only their milk products, but there's also danger that it could be passed on to their meat products because reports say that there are also traces of melamin on the feeds that they produce.
In my mind, all this incidents taught lessons to the companies the hard way. But it's the way they handled the situations that makes it worthwhile. As for China, (sorry for those Chinese people. don't worry I'm not hating on the Chinese) their "cheap" tactics are now getting exposed. I've always known that products made in China are somewhat "flawed," but I didn't imagine that it would go to this magnitude before they come to their senses and clean up their act.
PACOLI, J.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Profitablity should never come at a consumer's expense. I understand that there really are people who cannot afford quality goods and thus prefer cheap ones. I remember my Operations Management professor saying "cheap" to him means "of poor quality" and not to mean "inexpensive." Compared to cheap, inexpensive means having less quality at a lower price.
A line should be drawn between "cheap" and "inexpensive." Companies should make their products inexpensive rather than cheap.
Now that's Corporate Social Responsibility.
Have not heard about this.
This is so sad.
ang nakakalungkot dito, may mga kumpanya na gusto lamang kumita. hindi nila naiisip ang epekto ng kanilang mga ginagawa o mga produkto sa kalikasan at sa mga tao. wala nalang magagawa ang mga tao kundi magingat sa mga produkto na ginagamit nila.
I find these companies heartless to their consumers. It just shows that money really drives people not to care about social responsibility anymore and this is so depressing. I just can't imagine what the core values these companies have.
Post a Comment