Social Responsability/Laurea, BA 2012
A discussion area where you will change opinions about what it means to be "socially responsible". People and organisations should have special sensitivity towards social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues. The discussion concentrates on Nokia, Finnair and Nordea and their recents personnel policy
Administrators:
Members
- Emtonosa (1) | Benin City
- Tapio (1) | Espoo
- biraure (1) | Espoo
- AnttiRitala (1) | Kerava
- Joni (1) | Espoo
- MaijaR (1) | Espoo
- HannaS (1) | Kerava
- SamiMikael (1) | Espoo
- Jonas (1) | Espoo
- AinoV (1) | Espoo
- TapioS (1) | Espoo
- Aleksi (1) | Helsinki
- 1101655 (1) | Lohja
- 1101670 (1) | Kirkkonummi
- Eikka (1) | Vantaa
- Aikkari2011 (1) | Kirkkonummi
- toluxeey (1) | Espoo
- Wodagi (1) | Espoo
- MariannaP (1) | Vantaa
- MikkoK (1) | Vantaa
- Lampinen (1) | Espoo
- eetumaki (1) | Helsinki
- JaninaR (1) | Lahti
- NellaKuitunen (1) | Vantaa
- TiinaL (1) | Helsinki
- 1100168 (1) | Lahti
- roni.virtanen (1) | Espoo
- Mervi (1) | Kauniainen
- maijaramo (1) | Lahti
- vamerilmi (1) | Lempäälä
- HanZhang (1) | China
- skoulu (1) | Helsinki
- Aaoj89 (1) | Lohja
- ElisaR (1) | Espoo
- LauraKoskivaara (1) | Espoo
- KaiSa (1) | Espoo
- YeQiu (1) | Lahti
- annika.ryan (1) | Espoo
- modecai.baba (1) | Tampere
Would you like to comment?
Log in or Sign up
Comments
After reading the article on Nokia, i have come to realize that the battle of competition for market share by Nokia with other mobile phone companies seem to be a little overwhelming for the Finnish company. Terminiating such a large number of employees does not seem to tell well of their social responsibility. The same applies to finnair. Companies should be responsible not only for their environment, but also for their staff. Job security is important in the world's dwindling economy.
EXTERNALITIES as explained by economist are side effect, and in the positive sense is spillover effect in any business operation. They are the effect a business has on its environment either directly or indirectly.
And one major advantage companies derive from effective practice of a CSR program is
1.Competitive advantage: any organization that fully operate in a corporate social responsible way will attract investors, customers and sponsors this will lead to competitive advantage, it will give them a hedge ahead of its competitors.
Now linking this three ideas together we see that most companies are not socially responsible because they release a lot of negative externalities to the environment and society. and no one wants to patronize such companies because of risk issues.
EXTERNALITIES as explained by economist are side effect, and in the positive sense is spillover effect in any business operation. They are the effect a business has on its environment either directly or indirectly.
And one major advantage companies derive from effective practice of a CSR program is
1.Competitive advantage: any organization that fully operate in a corporate social responsible way will attract investors, customers and sponsors this will lead to competitive advantage, it will give them a hedge ahead of its competitors.
Now linking this three ideas together we see that most companies are not socially responsible because they release a lot of negative externalities to the environment and society. and no one wants to patronize such companies because of risk issues. For examp
An answer to Mikko's question about if people should be hired just because of their social status or gender. I think students should get more opportunities in the job market. I understand that companies want to hire the most qualified person but then again if only the ones with alot of previous working experience and skills are hired, then who will hire a student? A student or a recent graduate has to gain the experience somewhere but if no one will hire them then how is it possible?
Many companies in the EU area face global competition, but their competitors in China, India etc. face much less restriction in their operations. Less restrictions mean less administration, less investments, poorer working conditions, smaller salaries etc. Leaner cost base gives them a competitive edge which EU-companies may face hard to beat. Therefore more and more companies move growing amount of their activities away from Europe and people here loose their jobs. Then these companies are accused to be socially unresponsible.
I think that most often the problem with CSR is not unresponsible companies, nor is it ordinary citizens. The problem is politicians who keep on having these dead duck meetings on these
I believe more has to be done from European companies with respect to social responsibility.
As many people have shown their worries concerning the layoffs made by Finnair and Nokia, I would like to know what do you think would have been better options to save the companies than to fire people. In my opinion, atleast Nokia did the right thing. The price of the share has plummeted, and the company also has their responsibilities for the stakeholders. In the end, they do try to help the people laid off.
What do you think is a better option, should the companies be forced by laws and regulations to be more attached to their workers, or should hiring/firing people made easier so that companies could hire more young people? Does being socially responsible mean hiring women or students just because of their social status by the expense of better qualified people. These are important things to consider, and I wish you could share your opinions with me
However, Coca cola provides provide more opportunities for women, a strengthened commitment to human rights, more accessible drinking water, use recyclable bottle, $100 million invested in communities, fewer fluorocarbons and more efficient energy and so on. From all these point, we know that coca cola is really an excellent CSR Europe member.
Because the usage of ISO 26000 is voluntary, adapting it is easy. Also in the developing countries, where awareness in social responsibility may not be on a high level, using ISO 26000 is easy, since one does not have to make major changes on companys or organizaions operations at once. People can adapt to ISO 26000 little by little and move slowly towards better future.
Being socially responsible is important for the company image and when following an internationally known standard people from another countries can trust on the company being socially responsible.
However, I'm not sure how easy it really is to become a socially responsible company or adapt ISO 26000. Yes, ISO 26000 offers companies guidelines and makes the concept of social responsibility more understandable, what's important etc. But I think that companies are still struggling with being socially responsible through and through. And even if a company can make little changes over time, it is still difficult and sometimes cost expensive to change the way a company or organisations operates.
Neither do I think that people can trust that a company is socially responsible because they are follwing the ISO 26000. There is a lot of greenwashing going on or it is only superficially social responsible. And what one needs to bear in mind is that ISO 26000 is not for certification but are only guidelines.
About ISO 26000 I felt actually little amazed that there is something like that, possibly that is a good way to guide companies for more socially responsible ways of working.
Very good points Aino. I am not sure about Finnair, but I still think Nokia has been working with the rules of social responsibility. They have tried to help their workers to get new jobs, carry on working in Nokia but just in a different section, or giving promotional money for businesses. As someone already mentioned, the other option would be bankruptcy.
That this goes straight against their statements of being "Socially Responsible" employers.
I dare to disagree.
Finnair pays their employees huge salaries, and gives massive bonuses, far superior to most of their competitors, while the management at Finnair, just like prettymuch all Finnish companies pay very little to their Managemet level.
This Finnish "Tradition" of paying a lot to the bottom-level employees, and not that much more to the management, has led to Finnish companies to a massive disadvantage.
Finnair has been making huge losses year after year, while I do believe the management has been acting in an unethical manner, I do strongly agree with the cuts, to avoid the whole company goes down.
Similiar thing with Nokia.
Sales have been falling down like a stone, if you need 30,000 people for selling 100mil. phones, and your sales drop to 14 million... pretty obvious result isn't it?
Most skeptics believe that ISO 26000 will not be the “magic bullet” which suddenly replaces all corporate social responsibility initiatives in the Supply Chain.
While the guidance is not a certifiable standard, it attempts to harmonize itself with UN Global Compact guidelines for ethical business practices and a number of
existing practices, principles and guidelines devoted to social responsibility. It seems that other studies
by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) prior to the final release
established that ISO 26000 may increase awareness, provide definitions and add legitimacy to the social responsibility debate. However, as stand-alone guidance,
ISO 26000 may not contain the practical guidance to enable SMEs (small or medium enterprises) to turn theory in practice.
Emphasis on compliance with laws and regulations, and stressed that the organization should be willing to fully comply with the organization and its activities shall comply with all laws and regulations, respect for internationally recognized legal documents.
Emphasis on stakeholder concerns.
Highly concerned about the transparency.
Concern for sustainable development.
Stressed that the concern for human rights and diversity.
According to the CSR report of Nordea 2011, their CSR work focus on their core business, responsible lending and responsible investments. Other key areas are improving clarity of products and services, developing and retaining our people and minimising the environmental impact of our day-to-day operations.
ISO 26000 is a standard of companies to implement their social responsibility in society. Meanwhile, the company they should follow the principle of ISO 26000 and improve it. Nordea delivered their responsibility .
When we look at the progress that has been achieved in the areas of making the businesses reduce the amount of polution etc., we could argue that if we create the same hype around the CSR it will make a difference, it will be something else than just a catchy acronym.
But it must be also understood that ISO-certificates involved in CSR and/or in conservancy are a business just like any other. These certificates are sold to the companies and so they must be considered as commodities. Are the roots of these certificates really in the efforts of making the world a better place?
Recycling, very few did it before, even when it was well known how harmful the lack of it is to the environment, but then it became something 'required' you're a bad person/company if you don't do it.. and companies started to put some effort into it, however, what really pushed it big time was when it was actually made profitable.
Recycling saves a lot f money, companies don't actually care too much about environmental impacts, due to the fact that the whole idea of a company is to make money not to save the world.
However, now that recycling gives massive decrease in waste management costs, pretty much every company does it, and on the side, they can market themselves about "caring the environment"
You can especially see this in hotels, "Please save water to save the world" etc. they don't honestly care about the world too much, but they do care about the water-bill! Which in hotel-industry is a rather big one.
I think the strikes Finnair has faced in recent times, the last one only a couple of weeks ago, has cost the company reputation. Outsourcing may be sometimes sensible or necessary for a company to cut costs or to survive. But then being able to pay the CEOs rent, while outsourcing in order to lower costs, does not look good in my eyes.
I also understand that it does not go too well for Nokia at the moment. However, they have ealier laid off employees and then transferred the plant to a country with low labour-costs. In my eyes, this is not socially responsible and might have caused the loss of a number of customers.
Finland is well known around the world that they are one of the most countries that take responsibility towards the changes our climate is facing.And with Finland's great connections internationally should be able to take the system to the countries that are in deep need for Social Responsibility skills.
We have Nokia that for many years they always make it clear to the world that they care about the CSR and how they are committed to the world wide rules that the UN has given all member states to follow.But the question is,how they're taking care of their employees?The layoffs make many of us think about their intention!
For Finnair I am not sure how serious do they take the CSR tools into account.We all have been hearing about all kind of Finnair messes from outsourcing certain services to their CEO housing.Many questions waiting for answers!
Like Aino I'm also hoping this standard and trend to cause something good in the end and make a dirrerence on its long travel !
ISO 26000 standard has decrease its reputation as added value giver or as a huge competitive factor, but I’m still a bit of scared what kind of report the future will bring when this standard gives organizations own choice in how to use standard in their operation, which is their focus point and way to operate on behalf of social responsibility.
When standard works it best in organizations it benefits all participants, but at worst it can be only beautiful words on paper cause of those who use the standard just as a one big stepping stone for to gain the same profit line with their operation fields other companies?
In their values it is said that they put personal first and their people strategy is based in their employees` strength. Their values and leadership are most powerful drivers for performance and is developing their corporate culture.
Nordea annually report on their environmental indicators in CSR Report, that is drafted along Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. GRI has instruction for environment and also for social and economic matters.
Finns have always been honest and transparent. Now when our big national treasures Finnair and Nokia gives us shocks, I as a Finn, have lost my faith to the Finnish honesty. In my mind we need to get it back before we lose our good reputation as a nation.
I think Finland has always tried to be socially responsible as a nation. Finland has good reputation globally: it takes care of its citizens, education is in the world´s top level and people here are honest. But when you look deeper, for example to municipality level, the situation is different; municipalities save from education, health care and the services of old people. Could ISO26000 standard concern not only an organization or a company but the whole nation? Because of Finland’s good reputation and pioneer citizens it could be the first nation to start to follow the standard.
I agree what Mervi said:” It is fashionable to be socially responsible. . Companies are more and more international and are telling their social responsibility in their annual reports.”
So true!
During my studies this far I’ve had my share to read more than enough different kind of companies annual reports which keeps in the idea of underlining their doing for the social responsibility.
The ISO 26000 standard has made it work by coming famous and all around used, but how many companies really can say that they stand behind the though in their every day operation in their every function place and with all the products and services they produce and offers?
It's sad that some luckily tries untill the further reveals of the companies true situation of those some companies operating still in the wrong way, but saying other to public :S
I look forward to when will be found responsible leaders who truly follow the ISO 26000 standard and all social responsibility issues.
again follow the ISO 26000 standard and all social responsibility issues more less. I think competition is too tough. I still hope that Nokia is a socially responsibility company in the future. But I don´t know how they can make more growth and better incomes if they follow the rules and others do not.
Very true what you said about the bonuses, and what is even more weird is that the factory in Salo was making profit
But when the illegal malpractices are done by subcontractors in the developing countries we can only see the news and wonder. That is the global problem.
Still, in Talvivaara factory, we did not have any real resistance. We only had conversations in media which lead nowhere. Finnish people should really go to the barricades, so that some changes would actually happen.
Moreover, communication with stakeholders is good and important way to add the respective groups perspectives on corporate social responsibility work. Nordea also enforces social, human rights, environmental principles and regulations throughout supply chain. Close cooperation and extensive dialogue with suppliers is also required.
In my own view the Nokia's remuneration of the board of directors is been too much to sustain in a company that has been struggling lately to keep up with the competitions in the telecommunications industry.
I strongly feel that these two statements are contradictory because if the company is really striving to maintain social responsibility, then it should do so by first of all protecting the jobs of its employees and therefore saving costs ought to be directed at other areas s
And it would be good for companies to find ways to make their workers realize the importance of working responsible.
I think you have some good points. Especially when two companies have similarly good offer to make for a deal, havinggood standards might be the thing that matters. But, even though taking standards in to use is usually positive, one should remember that making people work in a new manner always causes friction in the working atmosphere. The implementation should be done carefully, so that people will see the benefits. Anyone have any ideas how?
This was quite a slip from the minister, as it would be illegal for companies to follow such advise, as those kinds of information is not allowed to be handled in personnel registers. Those kinds of requirements are also not needed in vast majority of jobs any company offers, and as such can´t be used as a basis for hiring someone.
Knowledge about all paths of life and other cultures is always a strength, but it should not be a goal in itself to have representatives of every kind of minority and majority as possible in the organization.
In one of the chapters of its HR strategy (opportunities to develop and grow)it has a title: "Working to increase gender equality". It says: "...more men are holding managerial positions than women. To come to terms with this, it is mandatory that at least one woman be among the top three candidates for every managerial position."
I don't get that. That is not (in my opinion) a right or wise way to do the choosing of the best. Sometimes there might not be a good candidate for the position (a woman) or there might be one that is not quite as good as some candidate (a man). Still they have to consider the woman because she is a woman. She might have something that makes her a good candidate but if the one point in her favour is her gender, I think that Nordea fails in its goal.
Nordeas management says that employ cuts will improve their services and effiency, but how can you accomplish that by cutting people off?
This why I agree with Antti because it is not rational to cut employees by saying that they are to expensive to keep in the company. And it is stranger to say that they are improving their services anf effiency by doing so.
Nowadays the banks are filled with people who are waiting for their turn because there is not enough employees or banks. Is the waiting good and efficient service from the bank?
But they are still forgetting that many people are wary of internet, because they believe it's much more safer to handle money from hand to hand then to do it through internet (especially the elderly ppl).
Internet can be a friend but also an enemy. It is simply and somehow easy to use, but as Anni earlier said, besides the good and trustful zones there are loads of scamming sites.
By keeping the offices running, the eldery may handle their own businessess with the banks, and the most common threat that something goes wrong is a bank robbery. On internet the risk is that the machinery is digitally infected or the end-user somehow goes to a pishing site or somehting. Both ways are great, and thats why these should be kept. It would be sad if we lose this another (physical) option just because of economizing.
"The workers are the company's most important resource", that is very true in almost every company. Mostly they also broadcast it to their customers, but how true is it. In some companies in Finland like McDonald's, the employees are making the difference in the customers opinion of the company. And still still they get the minimum wage and are impolite at times. Shouldn't the company do about something to improve their employees' well being so that they can be happy and give a good picture to customers so that they will visit McDonalds again?
In report Finnair Oyj's director of human resources Manne Tiensuu says that fuel prices are impossible to influence and investment in machinery has to be done for growth of the business so personnel costs are often the subject of reduction.
From outside it's easy to say but I think that cutting personnel costs is not the right thing to do. Searching for new and efficient ways of working should be the first thing to do.
The personnel is therefore the only actual possibility for savings. The new and efficient ways of working Joni mentioned often lead to personnel reduction, since the new ways usually mean more work done by less people. I agree that from the outside it seems a bit wrong to lay people off, but it is a necessary measure to be taken, since all the other costs, like fuel prices, are going up.
It already has fired back: people aren't anymore that eager to fly with Finnair.
The huge bonuses given to management in Finnair could been used more properly, e.g. enhancing the social responsibility issues and if not that, at least the personnel could have kept their jobs.
With the bonuses though, it makes the management only look greedy and the lay-offs can´t be seen as the only option to ensure the existence of the company! They can´t even make that claim and be taken seriously. Another personnel management trick could have been cutting from the bonuses themselves.
Then again, I´ve heard some people say that to have top managers in your company, they must be paid properly and trusted that they know what they are doing. Their aim is to make the company prosper, and their cost is what it is. Only this time that way of thinking seems to have back-fired, as it lead to bad publicity and tarnished image.
By firing employees don't remove the problem. It just moves it from the company to the employee who gets unemployed. I'd say that Finnair should first check if there are any possibilities to reduce their outgoings, for example if there are some alignments which has a high slack-ratio.
Who am I to say what they should done in there, but for summary, I'd say that firing employees should be the last thing to do, if there is none who are just hanging around and doing nothing.
In other words: These kind of actions diminishes the company's credibility and causes unwanted consequences.
In 2009 Nokia said in their corporate responsibility report that "Nokia-team must be strong, creative and flexible so we are trying to recruit and to commit qualified and well motivated people with a different geographical, cultural and national background. We see a diverse and inclusive work environment as a prerequisite for long-term success".
I have been working for Nokia and I saw that the staff was very multi-cultural.
So I assume that, that is their main objective when choosing a new employee. Maybe they are trying to create an atmospheare where the client's needs and values are well met and more than that, well understood (for example through the same religion, language, nationality or beliefs). I don't say that it can't happen if people are from different backgrounds but it can certainly help the situation not hinder it.
Getting qualified and motivated personnel is of course important, but is it really a socially responsible act to hire them from abroad, when there are equally competent job seekers in Finland also?
Another perspective for Nokia's social responsibility is about that Nokia is constantly dismissing its employees. According to Nokia's corporate responsibility program, they are, however, supporting the people who are as a target for layoffs. Nokia gives four different options for those people: to find a new job inside Nokia, to find a new job outside Nokia, to become an entrepreneur or new "career paths".
But Nokia also provoked irritation when is started recruiting news staff even though the layoff negotiations where still going on.