Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability. Answer: Introduction In this report, the details about the two companies along with their industries and countries of operation are described. Moreover, social performance issues of these two companies are also illustrated in this business report. The differences of these companies based on the range of social, environmental and economic issues is also highlighted in terms of style, content and presentation of the social reports, strengths and weaknesses of the approaches the report is presented and range of issues that in the report is also focused. Furthermore, the differences between these companies are also described followed by assessment of the quality of social accounting approach according to Zadek et al.s (1997) criteria. In addition to that, the mission statement, values, business principles of these two industries are critically analyzed by aligning the approaches to social responsibility and sustainability. Lastly, a group reflection about the social reporting of the two companies is provided that identifies the key points of agreement and disagreement with other group member. Nike was established in the year 1964 headquartered in The United States. Alike their actual business objectives, Nike in Australia, also liable for design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing of the sports footwear. In the year 2016, the total revenue of Nike Australia Pty Ltd was $463,398,000 (Nike, 2017). They have employed 379 employees in Australia and ranked number 801 out of the top 2000 companies in Australia (Nike, 2017). On the other hand, Samsung was found in 1938 with the purpose of delivering premium quality technology through their digital devices. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd has attained the total revenue of $2,495,303,000 inclusive of other revenues (Samsung, 2017). The concerned organization had 332 employees in Australia and ranked number 147 out of the top 2000 companies in Australia (Samsung, 2017). It can be said that both the industry are leading in their own industry and both companies are serving in more than 100 countries across the world. Samsung has around 30 subsidiaries; while Nike has only 8 subsidiaries (Iannuzzi, 2017). These two leading companies follow corporate social responsibility and publish them to represent their efficiency of their business. These companies have taken all possible steps to perform their business procedure in such a way that all the environmental and business ethics can be maintained. Considering their selection of the raw materials to the business procedures through which the raw materials are processed to the final products are done in such a way that planet earth or any mankind does not get affected. Comparing Nike and Samsung based on range of social, environmental and economic issues The sustainability report of Nike and Samsung represent their business activity that follows all the business ethics. Moreover, in case of both the companies use their principles for highlighting their commitments towards effective corporate social responsibility. However, comparing these two companies seems to be unfair as they have different business operation but they are proceeding with the same aim that is to les affect the planet earth. Nike in their sustainability report mentions that they have addressed climate-related issues through the concept of low-carbon growth economy. Nike in their also mentions that they have reduced absolute CO2e emissions. The below is the chart given in the Nikes report stating that if they will a mind-set of "business-as-usual, the rate of emission could increase. Nikes report also highlighted their initiative for setting a vision for a low-carbon, closed-loop future, where small amount of resource are used to formulate new products and recycle those product for emitting less carbon in the environment. Explaining Differences: Nike and Samsung Nike and Samsung both are leaders in their market. Nike is related to the manufacturing of the sports accessories like footwear and apparels; while, Samsung is liable for the formulation of the electronic gadgets. Managing sustainability is more important for Samsung compared to Nike as the former organization is liable for manufacturing electronic goods that should emit less heat that is the major reason of global warming. However, Nike should also control their waste management system. In the Nikes report it is only stated that they have taken appropriate steps for defining their water efficiency, carbon emissions and details about sourcing, products and waste. The report also highlighted the negative aspect that is during this period there was 20% lack of estimated goals and the reason is inbound logistics challenges. Rating the sustainable methods for the production of the Nikes apparels and footwear in gold, silver and bronze, 86% of Nikes contract factories are rated bronze, 98% of the footwear scored silver and more than 80% of the new apparel scored bronze on their product sustainability indices (Nike, 2017). The Nike Inc. value chain footprint for the year 2015 represents the environmental impact at each value chain stage: Comparing the sustainability report of Samsung, the report first show their sustainability framework that clearly mentioned they adhere both economic as well as social value. Samsung has faced many issues due to which they have taken the initiative for recognizing risks and opportunities of sustainability management, aligning the social responsibility issue with their business aims and objectives. Samsung represents the data that they not only value the sustainability of the business approach but also develop strategies for the development of the mankind for enhancing the CSR activities. These activities are- gender equality and women empowerment, reducing inequalities among countries, protecting ecosystem, and reserving biodiversity and revitalize global partnership for sustainable development. Another important aspects of the Samsungs sustainability report that it contains much information that should be present in the annual report like- organizational structure, roles of every de partment, details about new products and related sales from those products. However, in sustainability report for the year 2017, these value are highlighted in the starting few pages of the report. Thus, it can be said that they overcome their past issue of mentioning irreverent discussion in their sustainability report. Quality of Reporting: Social Accounting based on Zadek et al.s (1997) criteria at Nike and Samsung There are eight principles of quality under Zadek et al.s (1997) criteria that is described in this section for Nike and Samsung. These eight principles are inclusivity, comparability, completeness, evolution, management policies and system, disclosure, external verification and continuous improvement. The major aim of this concept is to evaluate whether or not a company is auditing and reporting appropriately along with the proper identification of business pressure and controversies, stakeholder risk and transparency in the business procedures. In context of inclusivity, Samsung identifies the set of stakeholders that are liable to implement the sustainable approach in their business procedures. Details about Board of Directors (BOD) composition along with BOD Qualifications and operations are defined in the report. Risk management in case of protecting the business approach is also identified. On the other hand, Nike only focuses on the sustainable innovation approaches and not on the people, who are responsible to implement the same. In terms of comparability, it can be said that Nikes sustainability report is better than Samsung as the data is only discussed on sustainable approaches and not on other business process like organizational structure and details of innovative products. However, information about sustainable business approaches is clearly mentioned in the report. Moreover, in context of the evolution, Nike identifies low-carbon growth economy and set their aim and values to enhance the technology and the manufacturing process. They have also report their achievements on role of workforce, role of technology and strategic partnership. On the other hand Samsung defines their key stakeholders, risk councilors, materiality analysis that furthermore refers to the material issue facing by the organization. In terms of management policies and system, Samsung include human rights policies in cooperation with BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), labor practices and human rights, workplace health and safety policies, privacy and data security policies, waste and hazardous materials management policies, water and wastewater management and green product policy. On the other hand, Nike has identified carbon and energy performance policies, tax policies, intellectual property policies and climate and energy policies. Additionally, in aspect of disclosure, Nike provides details of their performance and disclosure statement and committee. The details are mostly related to their sustainable activity; whereas, Samsung, focused more on disclosing financial data compared to disclosure of challenges related to the business ethics. Both the organization provides general standard disclosures from the GRI sustainability reporting guidelines. Nike whereas focuses only on major points and numerical data, Samsung present descriptive discussion that is hard for reader to follow. On the other hand, if external verification is considered, the data seemed to be less verified. In case of Samsung, the comparison is present that the total carbon emission is reduced by 49% in the year 2016 compared to 2008. In this case, the serial breakdown for every years usage of carbon emission is not given. Nike has represented every statistical data related to the sustainability approaches along with the CSR activities like including diverse workforce. This help viewers to understand the context of the report effectively. In comparison with Nike, Samsungs sustainability repots lacks all these graphical representation and the company additionally undertakes CSR activity. Lastly, in terms of continuous improvement, both companies have acknowledged long lasting commitment with sustainable business practices. Nike and Samsung Company Values The core strategic aim for Nike is minimizing the environmental footprint, transforming manufacturing and unleashing human potential. Nike also define target for all these three business core values. Nike targeted their products, selection of material, carbon and energy, water and waste management for minimizing the environmental footprint. Target for manufacturing transformation are manufacturing process and labor; while, target for unleashing of human potential are employees and community impact. Nike also aims to increase the sustainability performance to 81% by 2020 compared to 28% that was in the year 2015 (Nike, 2017). The Samsung in terms of their green management has the vision of creating sustainable future by providing a green experience. Moreover, the concerned organization also aims to innovate green products and technologies that consume less power for activation. Aims and objectives are also formulated for customer value enhancement, business transparency, eco-friendly and safe workplace, supply chain and corporate citizenship. We have the group meeting for three days to identify which organization between Nike and Samsung is more sustainable. In the first day, our main topic of discussion is the carbon emission and footprint. The discussion highlighted the fact that Nike throughout the report represents the statistical data to show that they are continuously improving in reducing the carbon footprint for a sustainable earth. On the other hand, Samsung only shows that they have carbon labeling certification and achieved many awards but do not present any statistics so that their improvements can be measured. In the second meeting, we are focusing on the disclosure of the data and found that Nike in this aspect also get maximum preference than Samsung. Nike disclosed all their approach along with their aims and commitment to business ethics. Moreover, Nike also discloses their safety aspect in the workplace and Standard Disclosures from the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. On the other hand, Samsung only use descriptive methods and there is less number of statistical data available. They have focused more on the financial gains and products that they newly innovate. Thus in this case also Nike gets more preferences form the group member. The third meeting is done concerning the attractive things that the members found in both of the sustainability report. One of the team members likes the graphical interpretation of the sustainability factors as it is easy to understand their approach towards saving the earth. Another member highlights the aim, objectives, future plans for sustainable movements related with their products. On the other hand, one member illustrate the preference towards Samsung by stating that they have huge CSR program and they have represented the Eco-Design Process that shows their initiative for saving energy and carbon emission. However, at last, all the members of the team agreed on the fact that electronic products somehow contributes in global warming even if recycling process is conducted but Nikes business process is related to water, raw fabrics and shoe material, where there is no participation of carbon emission. Thus, the group discussion also stated that though Samsung has a huge target market than Nike, the later organization is more sustainable than Samsung. Conclusion This assessment is regarding the comparison of the sustainability report of two different companies. Nike and Samsung are the two organizations that are taken into consideration. In case of Samsung, lack of clarity around the information regarding sustainability approaches is witnessed but the details of CSR activity are clearly defined. In case of Nike, the entire report is focused on the sustainability approaches and it has been shown pictorially that help first time viewers to better understand their achievements. Problem related to the business process is also mentioned along with their measures to overcome it. Details concerning stakeholder management, roles and responsibility are also mentioned in both the reports. Reference List Dauvergne, P. Lister, J. (2013). Eco-business: A big-brand takeover of sustainability. MIT Press. De Brucker, K., Macharis, C., Verbeke, A. (2013). Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach. European journal of operational research, 224(1), 122-131. Henderson, R., Gulati, R. and Tushman, M. eds., 2015. Leading sustainable change: An organizational perspective. OUP Oxford. Holloway, J. (2016). What stakeholder management should learn from sales and marketing. Further Advances in Project Management: Guided Exploration in Unfamiliar Landscapes, 236. Iannuzzi, A. (2017). Greener products: The making and marketing of sustainable brands. CRC Press. Kashmanian, R. M., Moore, J. R. (2014). Building greater sustainability in supply chains. Environmental Quality Management, 23(4), 13-37. Lee, K.H. Vachon, S. (2016). Business Value and Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Lee, K.H. Vachon, S. (2016). Integrated Supply Network and Business Sustainability. In Business Value and Sustainability (pp. 59-93). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Muller, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. Nike. (2017). Sustainable Innovation. [online] Available at: https://about.nike.com/pages/sustainable-innovation [Accessed 31 Aug. 2017]. Samsung. (2017). SAMSUNG. [online] Available at: https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/sustainabilityreports/ [Accessed 31 Aug. 2017]. Samuelson, P. A., Anderson, H. C. (2014). corporate social responsibility. Morality and the Market (Routledge Revivals): Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability, 43. Steenkamp, J. B. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility. In Global Brand Strategy (pp. 209-238). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Suliman, A. M., Al-Khatib, H. T., Thomas, S. E. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Performance: Reflecting on the Past and Investing in the Future, 15. Tai, F. M., Chuang, S. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. Ibusiness, 6(03), 117. Ziegler, J. Gerhartz, S. (2016). Sustainable Supply Chains-How do companies integrate sustainability into their supply chains?.