Student’s name
Instructor’s name
Institutional affiliation
Date
Corporate responsibility
Corporate responsibility is the ability of corporate firms to control their actions in the market, which happens to be the real world. The current state of affairs positively drives it in the real world. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is very high competitiveness to survive every test placed along the road. The main issue on the market that these firms consider as a significant concern is consumer satisfaction with profit maximization in the back of the mind. Such a goal causes organizations to be self-centered and very mean since they only care about how deep they will go into their client’s pockets, how huge they will make the sales, how enormous the firm will grow into, at the very expense of either the local consumer, other small businesses out there and even worse at the expense of their workers in that particular firm in question. This shows how rotten a system can be if it only cares about money over basic human survival.
In journals written by scholars about this matter, they do not shy away from showing their disappointment and dismay about the current generation. An article by Jean Twenge shows the difference between the modern era and the ancient generation. She says that people initially were controlled by values that were perceived by the community and the society at large as morally upright. On the contrary to that, as time went by, people gradually changed and became monsters who would only think of themselves and how they would make a killing on the corporate scene and increase an extra coin in their pockets. Since was so since the eradication of the communist approach of life, since nowadays the individualism gear works best for everyone although to the expense of a disadvantaged few who are disregarded due to their inability to ask for better treatment by the other people who imaginary seem to own worldly powers in any sphere of the world that they control. This state of affairs is known as capitalism. Everyone capitalizes on what makes him win.
The market we live in is free since everyone is free to make his standards choices and type of goods or services to produce. On the other hand, a consumer is also free to decide which store to buy things, the quantity to take home, and when to take home. The worker in the middle of the consumer-producer equation is also free concerning where to work and who to work for, and when to work. It is out of this reaction that you find the market being free. It is controlled by the interaction between the buyer and the seller. Normally consumers do not live full-time on the market stalls purchasing goods, but the producers and the sellers, whether the mega sellers, whole-sellers, or retailers, take this as a full-time occupation. Therefore although free, this part of the world is never free since its relations are dictated by the interactions between the players in this sector, who are the consumers, sellers, and the sellers’ workers. When we talk about social responsibility, it is evident that the seller’s firms are the trendsetters or bosses. Therefore social responsibility should be applied by them to the consumers and the workers of these firms. Since there is competition as it is not only one firm in the global market, firms should be responsible for corporate responsibility to even other firms in the scope, as they benefit from the same pool of consumers. Therefore any firm in the corporate scene should adhere to corporate responsibility to these three factors: the other firms in the market, the consumers of their products, and their workers.
In America, employees are often manipulated by firms so that they may increase their margin of profits. A firm may reduce the cost of operation to reduce the production cost in the long run and the short run; this in the short run may seem to be a winning move for the firm since there will be a cut in the overhead costs of making business sales may increase and the profit margin increase when the market is booming. But when the graph is unstable, we find that most of the employees are retrenched due to an uneconomical methodology to beat a rising need for workers in these firms. Though it is good for businesses to operate with the freedom to encourage competitiveness, businesses should be highly concerned about their policies on other members of the economy both in the long term and short term. Using this approach, you’ll find that everyone is happy and considerable, and the relation between these members is blowing up to the best of each one of them.
Talking of competition between firms, we have two categories of firms in any economic model. Normally we have giant firms, firms which entered into the businesses a long time before others and have managed to seize good profits and opportunities to make themselves leaders in these industries. Then there are the start-up firms who are starting their operations either now or in the near past. These firms may be referred to as retailer firms or even small-medium enterprises. Small-medium enterprises and retailers always find themselves on the receiving end when the big daddy firms’ actions do not favor them either directly or indirectly. In a bid to increase the market for its goods, we can find big firms hugely slicing the firms of its products into sizes that threaten the continuity of small firms’ lives in the market. Examples of these scenarios are evident in well-developed economies. One firm that is the controller of the prices may alter with the price of goods, causing a devastating effect on other small firms in the market. For example, a big firm slices the price of a particular line of a product that is essential by 50%. The consumers in the market here will definitely be attracted to this crazy offer, therefore increasing sales for the firm in a move. This will affect the entire market controlled by a single firm, thus automatically riling out the other firms from the industry. This leads to the closure of many small firms and enterprises, leaves people jobless, and negatively impacted the economy.
When a firm mysteriously increases its sales to a top-notch level, where sales are doing so well, there is always a constrain between the suppliers of the raw materials to these firms and the manufactures and the producers and now the final firm which its work is to showcase the products to the consumer. Taking a natural product that does not need human intervention to have it fully made requires time to grow into usable raw material. If the sales of affirming drastically increase with a short period of time, this calls for increased production. This product uses a raw material which is god-given. Therefore also causing constraints to the laws of nature. Maintaining active sales and keeping command of the business will need to outsource many raw materials sources. If a certain supplier is not well developed enough to manage the pressure here, he will, out of no choice kicked out of the market. Nevertheless, not evening mentioning a land fragmentation probability that land would be fragmented or even polluted if the land was the raw material in question. This even leads to a more effective not only on the corporate sector but even on the environment, thus calling for even a broader look at the need for corporate responsibility.
If a supplier is beaten twice by the high demand for goods, this might lead to a failure in his side of the operation and even breaking the business cycle, chain, or ladder. The interaction of demand and supply sets market prices. Higher demand for goods calls for a higher supply of the goods in the market; going against these simple economic principle factors or theories will definitely crumple the operations of the chain’s supply side. Who here happens to be the supplier and the firm selling the good to the consumer if the supplier is not the same as the seller in this situation. Note that we may find a situation where the seller is still the supplier, but the supplier may not be the seller for the market’s swift functioning. Now given a failure in the supply side’s functioning, the firm may try to increase goods’ prices to curb the much-growing demand. This affects the consumer. First, the prices are high, meaning he will have to dig deeper into his pockets. If the consumer resists this move and finds an alternative way to beat this price action, there will be zero demand for the said commodity. On zero demand means the firm is particularly out of the market for that particular product hence no revenue. This means that the supplier may experience not getting paid. This mystery is solved effectively when everything is put in its place, even the pace of demand for goods and products.
There is also a need to look at the esteem of other players in the economy. Respect comes with a sense of personal identity. A person lacks self or personal identity when he lacks the ability to make decisions; he may be compared to a toddler. Toddlers are two-month-old babies who don’t know what next step, action, or move to take. Firms might find themselves compelling stakeholders into levels where it’s like they lack the necessary self-esteem. Given a situation where affirm pays for your medical cover and insurance bills, you will have no choice but look like a toddler in this particular scenario. In the short run, you may seem to be winning, but in the long run, it is your esteem that is being tied down to the ground, where you will have no choice but bow down to the demands of your employer. This has a hazardous effect that even most people contemplate suicide regretting why they decided to work for the said firm. This is also corporate responsibility since it even cares about the well being of the workers in question. Therefore corporate responsibility is a factor that each participant in a modern economy should strive to achieve instead of having our modern individualism approach.
Works cited
McGuire, Jean B., Alison Sundgren, and Thomas Schneeweis. “Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance.” Academy of Management Journal 31.4 (1988): 854-872.
McWilliams, Abagail, Donald S. Siegel, and Patrick M. Wright. “Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications.” Journal of management studies 43.1 (2006): 1-18.