CSR and Banding Strategies-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: "Despite aiming for vastly different goals, the approaches to Management used in for-profit and not-for-Profit Organisations are largely similar". Through the use of relevant theory and real-life Corporate examples, write an argumentative academic essay addressing the above statement. Answer: Introduction The emergence of social entrepreneurship shows the compatibility between business and social factors. Contemporary organizations no longer measure performance in terms of profits only. Instead, successful business have a reputation of being trusted and providing value to consumers. The purpose of this essay is to highlight the common factors in profit and nonprofit organizations. The discussion brings out different theories that benefit both sides. These are Branding, and Corporate Social Responsibilities. The final paragraph explains some of the challenges faced by organizations in implementing these management practices. These hindrances are common in all kinds of organizations across different industries. Suggestions for future implementations shades some light at the end of the tunnel. Using common examples in organizations, the essay confirms that both for-profit and no-profits organizations have common management practices. The coexistence of people and organizations calls for mutual benefits(Malik, 2015). Without people, an organization cannot survive and without organizations, life would be worthless in many ways. That is why some organizations choose to improve their employees lives as part of their CSR. An organization may thus have more than one CSR. What matters is the availability of recourses and the brands commitment to fulfilling the social plan. Branding or corporate reputation involves different approaches that add value to an organization(Martin Burke, 2012). Brand elements include the brand name, logo, tagline, marketing and Public Relations. Technology changes affect all kinds people and organizations. One aspect of this is the use of internet to inform, advertise and communicate. A closer look at both profit and nonprofit organizational use of online links reveals the importance of technology tools in shaping the brand name. UNICEF a United Nations agency dedicated to saving childrens all over the world has a Twitter page with 6.3 million followers(UNICEF, 2017). On the link, it has regular updates about its activities, agenda and website link. Any good will donor who connects to the website finds guidelines on how to donate to the organization. Apple Inc. is one of the most profitable brands globally; it also has web links for interesting promotions and brand information. Its purpose goes beyond business to incorporat e stakeholder information. The purpose of branding activities is to shape the reputation of the organization and communicating effectively with stakeholders. Branding in a multidimensional approach that targets both internal and external stakeholders of an organization. These are beneficial to the organization as well as the beneficiaries. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is multifaceted but its focus is on the improvement of society. This broad management concept gives a human face to business operations and it makes business sense for nonprofit organizations. Organizations can choose to implement CSR practices focused on charity, human rights activities, environmental protection, social development and economic development among others. Nonprofit organizations use CSR to reinforce the quality of service that the organization offers. The animal welfare has a CSR plan that makes use of social metrics to define its social responsibility. It advocates for the protection of animals but its CSR is to introduce farm animal welfare to businesses, which stock animal products. This is a kind of partnership for change in buyers consumption trends and attitudes(Animal, 2014). Business organizations with a profit agenda have a dire need to contribute to the wellbeing of the society. The Most common example adopted by most or ganizations today is in environmental protection function. Society comprises of people and organizations cannot exist without these people. Therefore, it makes sense to protect, improve and inform the community. Whether CSR takes the shape of an educational plan or poverty alleviation, its focus should be on adding value. Despite the numerous benefits of CSR and Corporate Branding, there are challenges involved. One of the barriers to the effective implementation of social approaches to business is in the unethical use of the concept for selfish gain(Hilson, 2012). Some business organizations have taken advantage of this concept for marketing and advertising agenda. The cost of advertising in the corporate world amounts to millions. Instead of using this money on billboards, print or TV adverts, some large organizations divert the money to social branding terming it as a benefit to society. In such a case, its significance fails because its agenda is to create awareness of the brand and not for social gain(Karim, Chase, Rangan, 2015). Another example of malpractice inaccurate reporting of carbon emissions released by production units. A manufacturing organization should consider the amount of pollution it causes against the amount of money it gives as CSR support for educating the poor people in that community. Humanity comes first because Business is more than a moneymaking activity (Tai Chuang,, 2014). Destroying the environment or failing to give accurate reports on carbon gas emissions by a production company is malpractice. This has led to protests and boycotts on products and businesses across the globe(Moodie, 2016). The solution to these challenges include the clear definition of CSR and Branding using a social connotation. Besides benefiting people, social responsibilities also target the environment. Some companies adopt both environmental and people focused techniques for greater benefits. Business organizations help the government to take care of the environment by supporting cleaning activities, planting trees and supplying water to the community. These are all value additions, which require support from more than one organization. This is an opportunity for leaders to serve the community without discrimination or prejudice(Van, 2011). It should not be subject to competition because brands can come together and serve the community under one agenda despite their business rivalries. CSR brings soberness to the business community while encouraging the nonprofit organizations to adopt excellence in their human service. Branding and CSR unite all organizations under one umbrella of common good(M urphy Lacznick, 2016). Conclusion Based on the discussion, it makes sense to point out that all organizations whether designed for profit or nonprofit should have a plan on adding value to the society. This process may involve spending money, time and other resources but it should not have a plan to gain from it. CSR has many dimensions and organizations have a broad spectrum to choose from, when making this decision. It does not make sense for all organizations to invest in environmental protection when people are dying from hunger, lack of health care and insecurities. Therefore, business organizations may collaborate with social organizations, which have a strategic plan on meeting social needs in the society. This will prevent unfair distribution of resources and abuse of the social agenda. In an effort to make, the world many organizations have changed lives for the better. However, some brands stand out for unethical practices and failure to make valuable contributions to the society. Inconsiderate organization s have also gone as far as reporting to have CSR activities when in reality they have none. There should be proper systems within the stakeholder community to ensure that there is accountability in the delivery and reporting of CSR practices. References Animal, W. (2014, July 24). Animal welfare fundamental to corporate social responsibility. Sustainability Consortium. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/2014/07/animal-welfare-fundamental-to-corporate-social-responsibility/ Hilson, G. (2012, June). Corporate social responsibility in the extractive industries: Experiences from developing countries. Resources Policy, 37(2), 131-137. Karim, S., Chase, L., Rangan, K. V. (2015, February). The Truth About CSR. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-truth-about-csr Malik, M. (2015). Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 419-438. Martin, M., Burke, R. (. (2012). Corporate reputation: managing opportunities and threats. Gower Publishing, Ltd. Moodie, A. (2016, February 6). The world's most hated company: Can NGO's help turn Shell's reputation around? The Guardian. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/06/most-hated-company-shell-oil-carbon-fuels-ngo-greenpeace-sigwatch-nestle-mcdonalds Murphy, P., Lacznick, G. (2016). The relationship between marketing ethics and corporate social responsibility: Serving stakeholders and the common good. Marketing Faculty Research and Publications, 68-85. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197context=market_fac Tai, F. M., C. S. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility. Ibusiness, 60(3), 117. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://file.scirp.org/pdf/IB_2014091916083406.pdf UNICEF. (2017). unicef for every child. Retrieved from unicef.org: https://www.unicef.org/ Van, D. D. (2011). Servant Leadership: A review and synthesis. Jouranl of management, 37(4), 1228-1261.