Company Q’s Dilemma
Company Q’s Dilemma
Company Q’s attitude towards social responsibility could not get any lower if expected to survive as a profitable business. Closing two stores in high crime rate areas could cause more pain and heartache. The rise of unemployment within the area could lead to more crime. Everyday lives of former customers who depend on Company Q for products just got harder. Looking elsewhere for products and having to pay more as competition just folded. The feeling that the company cannot donate to food banks is also problematic. The company cannot trust its own employees to do the right thing. This type of behavior “fraud and steeling” could lead to costly problems. The company not donating will be perceived as a negative image and cause customers to shop elsewhere. This seems like a high price gamble of shareholders vs. stakeholders. I believe that stakeholders win this game all the time. Company Q’s actions will affect customers, employees, and suppliers. Media could report on the situation of Company Q and spin it towards a negative light on the company and its image will suffer.
Leaving two stores open will project an attitude that the company is there for the community and residents who live in the high crime areas. If Company Q would sponsor more programs such as cleanup neighborhood day, youth activities, and college scholarships this would help empower residents to look after their own and reshape their neighborhoods.
The two stores could stock healthy and organic products. This will certainly attract shoppers who feel they are providing nutrition alternatives to their families and give the image of a company who cares about people and communities. Customers are willing to pay more for these products and will continue to return. The result is a winning situation for everyone and soaring profits for the company.
Another way to show the residents and community that Company Q cares is to...