Traditionally in the United States, CSR has been defined much more in terms of a philanthropic model. Companies make profits, unhindered except by fulfilling their duty to pay taxes. Then they donate a certain share of the profits to charitable causes. It is seen as tainting the act for the company to receive any benefit from the giving.

The European model is much more focused on operating the core business in a socially responsible way, complemented by investment in communities for solid business case reasons. Personally, I believe this model is more sustainable because:

1. Social responsibility becomes an integral part of the wealth creation process – which if managed properly should enhance the competitiveness of business and maximize the value of wealth creation to society.
2. When times get hard, there is the incentive to practice CSR more and better – if it is a philanthropic exercise which is peripheral to the main business, it will always be the first thing to go when push comes to shove.

Corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom and others made people distrust big businesses and this increased government regulations. This apart, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) started criticizing and battling with MNCs. The trend of rankings and ratings also pressurized companies to report their non-financial performance along with financial results. And, of late, media is observing companies closely. Embarrassing news anywhere in the world – say, a child sewing a cloth with a company’s brand on it – can be broadcasted across the world instantly. Relatively, customers are increasingly concerned about the companies’ impact on society including that on the physical environment, impact of products on the consumers, etc., as customers have become more aware of these issues through mass media.

Click here to read the Corporate Social Responsibility at TESCO

Register to mark your comments

Incoming search terms

• corporate social responsibility case study
• case study on corporate social responsibility
• tesco csr
• csr case studies
• tesco case study
• the world business council for sustainable development in its publication making good business sense by lord holme and richard watts used the following definition corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large
• 24
• case study concepts of corporate of social responsibility
• case study corporate-social-innovation company united states

1. Psychological research indicates that people’s behaviour is not very consistent. It is naturally situational specific. For example, you may use one conflict management style with a subordinate, and an entirely different one with your boss, regardless of what your “preferred style” might be. Your behaviour, in any given situation, is largely determined by the situation, NOT your preferred style. So, style questionnaires are a relatively poor predictor of what you (or someone else) will do in the real world.

2. There is a tendency for people completing these types of questionnaires to respond in a way that is consistent with how they would like to be, rather than the way they actually behave. For example, few people want to see themselves as wimpy conflict avoiders, so it isn’t surprising that you don’t come across too many people that fall into this category. Since many instruments are pretty easy to “figure out”, there is a tendency for people to respond in ways that they feel will present themselves in a positive light.

3. In many cases, the descriptions you receive as part of the interpretation of your score(s) are sufficiently general as to fit almost anyone. At least some of it is going to fit, much like the astrology predictions one finds in the newspaper.

4. Many trainers, or test administrators know that people are interested in themselves, and will become highly motivated when they are given the opportunity to “find out about themselves”. Taking a test about oneself is fun, and exciting, and often this excitement will obscure the fact that the instrument is poor, and the interpretations overly general.

5. Many trainers or test administrators have had little training in the use of instruments. Almost anyone can purchase questionnaires and offer them to clients. As a result trainers may not be aware of the limitations of the instruments or the interpretations, having had little or no education in test theory, or psychology.

On The Negative Side The negative side of training based on these instruments is that things appear scientific. The limitations of the approach are not always explained, and it is possible to take the enterprise far too seriously. In the hands of an unqualified trainer or consultant, the process becomes more of a fun parlour game, rather than a useful one. The primary danger here is that we will take the results far too seriously. Human behaviour is so complicated that a quick style assessment instrument simply cannot do justice to human complexity. In the hands of trainers with a limited background in testing or psychology, the results can be “oversold”.
Finally, there is no guarantee that a person’s behaviour will change as a result of taking one of these courses, or instruments. There is no guarantee that they will become better team members, more tolerant, or more effective. What they will be able to do is label themselves or others as being of a particular style. They may learn to explain a person’s behaviour (or their own) as being a result of a style preference, and that explanation will almost always be overly simplistic.

On The Positive Side

Besides being fun, these kinds of instruments have one primary benefit. They encourage people to be reflective about themselves and others. Even if the results of these instruments are totally bogus, and have no relationship with real world behaviour, people tend to look at themselves a bit more carefully. This is good. Whenever people think about themselves and their own behaviour, there is a chance that they will find better or different ways to behave.

Recommendations

1. Approach test results as suggestive at best. Be aware that your behaviour is determined by many factors, and that most tests are very general.

2. If you are contemplating attending a training course based on style identification, inquire as to where the trainer learned to administer the test. If they “learned it from a book”, then it is likely that they will have insufficient background to use the test properly. Look for people that have some form of formal training or certification. This is no guarantee that they will have the breadth of knowledge to point out the test limitations, but at least they will understand the instrument they are using.

3. If you think that having your team identify their particular styles is going to increase tolerance and team effectiveness, think again. On its own, it can create as many problems as it solves. It is possible that people will understand each other, but it is just as likely that they will use style labels to justify their intolerance.

4. Find out how the particular test was developed. Ask how the validity of the test was determined, and whether it is reliable. Validity and reliability of tests are very technical topics. However, if the trainer can’t answer your questions, or doesn’t understand them, then you can pretty much assume that he or she is not competent to use the instrument.

5. Finally, approach these forms of tests as fun exercises that may encourage reflection. Don’t get fooled by the appearance of science here unless the instrument has been thoroughly tested, and take the interpretations with a grain of salt. They should be seen as suggestive, not absolute, and can be used to stimulate discussion and thinking. Remember that no test can capture the complexity and flexibility of human behaviour.
click here to download

Register to mark your comments

Incoming search terms

• advertising testing validity and reliability of advertisements
• case study conflict management training
• case study on leadership styles
• leadership styles case studies

Because there are no guarantees other than hard work, many people are attracted by the lure of short cuts and cheating. Some people think trading in the stock markets is an easy way to success, so we see a no. of intraday traders with their hopes high sitting in front of the computer screen every day but only 10% of them are able to succeed, others just loose out in the rat race. This is why steroids are so popular in athletics and why doping is so horribly rife in cycling. The horse racing industry has been beset by scandal of people taking unfair means in order to take an advantage. With the millions of dollars at stake, people feel the risk of being caught is worth it. Also the horse, doesn’t get much of a say in the matter. So what can you do which is allowed? You can be organized, prepared and methodical. You can wake up early, go to bed late and in between put in the hours to make sure that you can do everything you can possibly do to have the best chances of being successful. This isn’t as glamorous nor does it have the thrill of doing something which is illegal. That’s just the way things work.
Unfortunately many people are put off by the thought of putting in the hours and working hard. Hard work is just something that most people want to avoid, but on the contrary this is the easiest way to success. On the flip side, it means that if you are prepared to do it, you can come out on top. Glory via cheating is short-term.
Eventually you are caught and then have to live with the shame and the guilt. This is a huge difference from success that comes via hard work – here you are left with a sense of achievement and pride that never goes away.
Marion Jones may have been the darling of the 2000 Olympics which took place in Sydney but now she is disgraced. Her medals were taken away and she went to prison. A similar thing happened in baseball with Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds who will never go into the Hall of Fame. The greyhound racing world was shocked when a highly successful trainer was found out to be cheating. He went into hiding and hasn’t been heard of since.
In the corporate world, there isn’t enough punishment for those who break the rules. People who embezzle and are guilty of insider trading are given a slap on the wrist. The classic example is Bernie Madoff but what could happen to him where the punishment truly fits the crime. The magnitude of his crime means nothing could ever fit the bill.
Now let’s look at a few examples of how hard work has paid off in life. Remember Lance Armstrong?? On October 2, 1996, at age 25, Armstrong was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer. The cancer spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. On that first visit to a urologist in Austin, Texas, for his cancer symptoms he was coughing up blood and had a large, painful testicular tumour. Immediate surgery and chemotherapy were required to save his life. Armstrong had an orchiectomy to remove his diseased testicle. After his surgery, his doctor stated that he had less than a 40% survival chance. Before his cancer treatment, Armstrong had won two Tour de France stages. In 1993, he won the 8th stage and in 1995 he took stage 18 in honour of teammate Fabio Casartelli who crashed and died on stage 15. Armstrong dropped out of the 1996 Tour on the 7th stage after becoming ill, a few months before his diagnosis. Armstrong’s cycling comeback began in 1998 when he finished fourth in the Vuelta a España. In 1999 he won the Tour de France, including four stages. He beat the second rider, Alex Zülle, by 7 minutes 37 seconds. However, the absence of Jan Ullrich (injury) and Marco Pantani (drug allegations) meant Armstrong had not yet proven himself against the biggest names. Stage wins included the prologue, stage eight, an individual time trial in Metz, an Alpine stage on stage nine, and the second individual time trial on stage 19. In 2000, Ullrich and Pantani returned to challenge Armstrong. The race that began a six-year rivalry between Ullrich and Armstrong ended in victory for Armstrong by 6 minutes 2 seconds over Ullrich. Armstrong took one stage in the 2000 Tour, the second individual time trial on stage 19. In 2001, Armstrong again took top honours, beating Ullrich by 6 minutes 44 seconds. In 2002, Ullrich did not participate due to suspension, and Armstrong won by seven minutes over Joseba Beloki.
Now this is what we call hard work, dedication, perseverance etc. It can be unanimously said that there is no substitute for hard work. Gambling, cheating will only get you success 1 out of 10 times. Some would say that the cheaters are just given us what we want. We want people to cheer and support and that is what they are providing us. This seems like a weak rationalization for doing something which is

Is There A Secret To Success? wrong. They want to succeed and are prepared to do so at any cost. Well is it worth this much?
Click here to download…

Register to mark your comments

Incoming search terms

• case study analysis examples
• cheating successful people for success
• swot

Register to mark your comments

Incoming search terms

• case study format
• free online marketing case studies

Whilst these applications are often simple games or utilities, the growing popularity of social networks and the rapid uptake of mobile technology have helped some apps become household names. Farmville, for example, the domain of armchair farmers and their bovine friends, is a champion cash cow, commanding the attentions of over 80m people.
Read more…

Register to mark your comments

Register to mark your comments

Incoming search terms

• case study
• swot analysis
• wall street case study