Social Responsability/Laurea, BA 2012

Founded: 30 Mar, 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

Campaigns

Group's call of contents

Log in or Sign up to join this group.

Only by joining you can add contents to campaigns

Would you like to comment?

Log in or Sign up

Comments

(31 Aug 2012)

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.

A RESPONSIBLE CORPORATION as seen by the economist is when a company perceives it is steadily internalizing externalities i.e. using sensing capabilities to measure and manage impact on the society.

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 example the coca cola company in india had issues with the indian people because of its excessive use of underground water thereby causing drought to the environment and shortage of undergroung fresh water for the villagers in india,Coca-Cola operates 52 water-intensive bottling plants in India,In the southern Indian village. they released a negative externality on the people and society. We should constantly avoid releasing this kind of externality to the people, socity and lets remain socially responsible by preserving natures resources and making this world a better place for us all. thank you
A RESPONSIBLE CORPORATION as seen by the economist is when a company perceives it is steadily internalizing externalities i.e. using sensing capabilities to measure and manage impact on the society.

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
(26 Jun 2012)
I think the way Nokia and Finnair have decided to terminate such large numbers of employees at the same time is not wise. They are causing a significant add to the unemployed population which is a burden on the social system. Im sure the companies could have predicted the fact that they have to cut on costs and could have made some better choices than terminate hundreds of employees at the same time. Cuts could have been made in other sections and on a long run instead of terminating alot at once.
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?
(25 Jun 2012)
Rio's environmental meeting 20-22.6.12 was like a dead duck again. This phenomenon repeats itself every year and some of the political leaders fly with big jumbo jets from thousands of kilometers, eat well and have fun in the meeting and then fly back. Any serious decisions are not made. These sort of meetings are surely not the solutions for environmental problems.
(12 Aug 2012)
In general the problem with environmental and sustainability issues is, that only a small number of all the countries in the world are committed to these issues. E.g. EU area is more concerned about environment than BRIC-countries which drive the growth of the world economy.

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
(25 Jun 2012)
As the world becoming integrated due to political and particularly international businesses Social responsibility has been the focus of attention for businesses. This is due to their footprint both to society and the environment. Social responsibility has been emphasized mostly by US companies as they are dominant players in globalization of international business. The USA Corporate governance system put much pressure on social responsibility. As you know, for example, Bill Gates,Microsoft is known philanthropist. Other US companies, like Wall Mart assisted the community in China during the past earthquake and flood disaster.
I believe more has to be done from European companies with respect to social responsibility.
(24 Jun 2012)
By: Mikko Meriläinen

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
(25 Jun 2012)
I thought about this matter yesterday, but not about Nokia or Finnair. I remember reading about for example S-group and some health care organisations like Mehiläinen, that they get quite a lot of money from Finnish markets, but then they use the money to develop their business abroad. I don't know what's the case with Nokia and Finnair, but it seems to me that it would be more socially responsible to use the money a company earns to develop the business and employee conditions in the same country. Naturally with S-group and Mehiläinen, they can't really move their operations abroad since they have to be local, but is it fair that for example Nokia moves their operations and manufacturing abroad? Usually many products nowadays are not produced in the country they are used in, but in countries where they are cheapest to produce. I think this is a bit unresponsible both ecologically and socially.
(25 Jun 2012)
Yeah, layoffs is not the best way. But it is the fastest way to solve companies current financial problems. I also agree ThaoDuong's opinion. For most company, the way they do a social responsible company is to use reuse of packaging material, energy efficiency, water management, recycling of waste efficiency and so on. This ways are not only attract and retain workers or members, customers, clients or users, but also ensure employees health and safety.
(24 Jun 2012)
Yeah, I pretty much agree that the layoffs are necessarily considered as the last solution to cut down on costs. For big corporation, the layoffs is not a wise solution as it causes burden to to the social welfare system. And for the remaining workers, they have to be responsible for more workload,this may lead to exploitation of employees. This issue will bring nothing but bad image of the brand, and certainly not a way of long term sustainability. In stead, big corporation can think of method to use energy as effectively as possible.Office energy and resources consumption are things that company can attempt to reduce initially. And in order to successfully control the energy consumption, corporations must have a strong commitment on this, especially they must have a way to make their employees follow this strategy voluntarily. For example, making the employees understand that their ways of using the energy sustainably can save their job in the long run.
(24 Jun 2012)
In many countries, these “socially responsible entrepreneurs” have been quietly making a difference by acting on their values and principles, and inspiring others. They have the spirit of social responsibility already. However, in many sectors and many parts of the world, people and businesses still lack the spirit or understanding of being responsible. They may lack the knowledge or incentive to realize that their actions are important for the well-being of other people and the environment.
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.
(24 Jun 2012)
ISO 26000 is the new guidance standard that defines the concept of social responsibility for all kinds of organizations. It helps organizations address their social, environmental and governance strategies. It helps in the process of building social responsibility into long term strategic plans and achieving meaningful impacts. Join ISO 26000 will not only have competitive advantage but also also gain reputation. Moreover, establish a good relationship with companies, governments, the media, suppliers, peers, customers and the community in which organizations operate. The standard list principles, issues and tools that can help an organisation address its responsibility to society and the environment and contribute to development that will meet the needs of present and future generations.
Since the world is constantly becoming more and more globalized and international activities are part of many companies core operations, having an international standard to define the dimensions of social responsibility is important.

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.
(24 Jun 2012)
I agree with you that it is good and important to have some kind of international standard concerning social responsibility to go by.

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.
(24 Jun 2012)
I feel it's great to have the ISO 26000 standard, even though it is voluntary. It should help international companies, who have to operate in various environments, to be more socially responsible. I think that employee relations & rights are really important, and companies should concentrate more on the education, job satisfaction and general well-being of their staff. Many here have commented on similar things. I think that it is important to remember that businesses have such a big impact on peoples lives, the employees and also the society in which the companies operatate in. It is sometimes easier to focus on the material things, such as environmental issues, because the social impact is sometimes more abstract and difficult to define.However, some cases are more clear (such as the big Nokia layoffs) and then it is really important for the company to handle these situations "in the right way". Being socially responsible in these situations can also affect the image of the company.
(23 Jun 2012)
I feel that being socially responsible is really important for companies today, because customers are beginning to be really aware about these things. It's really cool that so many organization has been taking part to become more responsible and I know that is trendy today like many of you have been saying, but that doesn't matter to me. The thing that makes me feel a little suspicious about these companies is that if they are doing that only to attract more customers, then they are possibly not doing it for the people or environment, but for money?

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.
(23 Jun 2012)
Nokia and Finnair have to lay off huge amounts of their personnel to become (more) profitable and to be able to operate further. Other option could have been unprofitable operation which leads to bankruptcy. Even if Finnairs and Nokias resent actions do not look very Social responsible in our eyes, it might be the only way these companies can continue their life. At the same time when these companies have not been so social responsible in labor practices they still continue to be responsible for example environmentally. For example Nokia and NSN encourage their labor to have ecological company cars and they support these cars more than cars with bigger emissions, which I think is a good and social responsible behaviour.
Good point, I actually didint think about social responsibility from this point of view. I think a lot of foreign companies are more profitable than Finnish ones because of low labor costs. In Finland the government forces companies to pay huge sums of money for insurances and retirement pensions. Also the salaries in Finland are in a high level. From one point of view the government is forcing companies being responsible, having insurances and pensions is a good thing for the employees. On the other hand, outsourcing is often a lot cheaper and one reason for this are all the extra costs, companies have in Finland. And when the business in Finland is getting unprofitable, the only thing that can be doe before bankruptcy, is to lay people off or move operations into low cost countries.
(24 Jun 2012)
For big corporation such as Nokia, It may be true that the company understand the situation and layoffs are solutions to ensure the survival of the company. Although it is not the best way, but it is also a good sign when they promise to support their employees after the layoffs.Encouraging employees to start their own business and support them or suggesting new jobs are good ways of easing the trouble. It would also necessary if the company can have some program of practical training for the employees before they have to switch to one totally different business sectors. the company should also have proper mental compensation or treatment for their employees as well.
(24 Jun 2012)
By: Mikko Meriläinen
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.
(24 Jun 2012)
Nokia has probably tried but the Nokias shop steward said that according to the workers they have to find a new job themselves even Nokia had promised a new job. In 2006 Nokias shop steward Tomi Seppä was surprised why Nokia was laying off people even when the company was making a good profit. In 2007 Nokia was laying off people in Salo because according to Nokia the reason was a labor shortage even they previously hired there new employees. I think that Nokia doesn’t have any social responsibility. They operate only on their own personal interest. Forget connecting people=)
There's been a lot of talk about Nokia and Finnair laying off people etc.
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?
(24 Jun 2012)
At this point, I think Finnair should certainly have a more proper method of rewarding and giving bonus to its employees. It is necessary to reward employees but in case the company is in difficulty, the employees should be made to understand that reducing on bonuses is necessary to ensure their jobs. For management level, sufficient reward and recognition is much more necessary because it affects the company in the bigger scope. I think on the one hand Finnair must keeps on reducing unnecessary exceeding bonuses, it also have suitable acknowledge programs to make its employees understand and later act properly to help the company survive
(23 Jun 2012)
Skepticism and reservations about the ISO 26000

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.
(22 Jun 2012)
What are principles of CSR:
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.
(24 Jun 2012)
There are a lot of things to deal with CSR. But in general, wh can say that it acts on the voluntary basis. I do think all laws ans regulations are just methods to aid and encourage company to act sustainability. WHat important is the company has to be aware itself of the important of practicing CSR to ensure its sustainability in the long run
(22 Jun 2012)
Nordea is the leading financial services group in the Nordic and Baltic Sea region and operates through three business areas: Retail Banking, Corporate and Institutional Banking and Asset Management and Life.
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 .
(22 Jun 2012)
Truly CSR is in the centre of many discussions and it is truly trendy at the moment, but so it has been with the corporate responsibility for nature. Why is it bad for trying to be trendy?
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?
(22 Jun 2012)
Indeed it seems that drafting these standards is mostly just about making a profit by selling them to the companies. One of Nokia's executives himself stated a while back when IS026000 was being introduced that many large multi-national companies are already doing many, if not all, of the items recommended in ISO 26000. Assuming that his statement has credence, that would mean that IS0 26000 is just a repackage of practices already in use.
CSR is definitely trendy, and it's a lot like recycling earlier.

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.
(24 Jun 2012)
I think recycling is a part of CSR. For many successful organizations being socially responsible is a part of who they are and why they are in business: to provide useful products and services, to provide jobs and development opportunities for their communities, and to gain satisfaction through meaningful work.
(22 Jun 2012)
I agree with your opinion about this recycling. Nowadays, more and more companies care about their finance not the environment.In fact, this is more like a whole social trend. Recycling is a good way to save money, but it is more important to save environment.
(21 Jun 2012)
I had a dsicussion with my friend regarding companies interests and if they are really worried about the climate.We came to the point where I see that many of you have reached that CSR's just Fashionable that the new customers they'll have will be "impressed".Let's look at it globally,are global companies very interested in our climate and making the earth better place to live for the next generations?The companies at the end of the day are interested in their own guidlines and intrests.So many companies have already destroyed their image and to build back the trust they have had,it'll take them years!To attract the society to become more familiar with the company(ies) they'll have to proof that CRS is their point of interests and focus point!
(20 Jun 2012)
I do agree with Aino’s and Nella’s thoughts that it is still better in the long run that companies are socially responsible even though they would just do it because it is fashionable. All actions, which are socially responsible, will help our planet become a better place for us and for future generations. Somehow it just feels wrong to me that companies would just purposely plan to be socially responsible because it is more acceptable to the customers, clients and to the society. However it is good to keep in mind that when companies try to be a good and socially responsible company and won’t follow completely their own set guidelines and principles like in Nokia’s and Finnair’s cases, companies will destroy not only their image but also the trust they have built. Therefore I think it is very important to companies to practice what they preach.
(24 Jun 2012)
I agree that companies should actually do what they say that they will do. If you read annual reports and other statements, many corporations say that they have wonderful CSR guidelines and action plans etc. in place. However, sometimes I wonder if that is actually the case. It all may sound good on paper, but with many internal corporate operations we do not actually know what is happening. It is true that some companies might be doing "responsible things" simply to look good and to appeal to their customers. However, I do hope that many of these actions are done with good intent, such as some companies giving back some of their profits to local charities etc. Every little bit helps and I think that all social responsibility schemes from companies are a step in the right direction. Perhaps the next step could be to have a standard that is not voluntary? I know that many countries have their own regulations on CSR, and there are international ones as well, but how unanimous are they?
(20 Jun 2012)
I agree with the comment that it is fashonable to be socially responsible. I have the impression that many companies still put their main emphasis on the environment and to help, for example suppliers in developing countries - which are both important issues of course! Still, some companies seem to neglect their own personnel which is their most important asset!

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.
(20 Jun 2012)
My last comment concern on companies balancing between social responsibility and economical profit. I was reading Tieto Corporations net pages and I found a comment that “any company with an interest in the future needs to plan its sustainability work from an economic perspective”. That was my thought exactly! To realize that it’s important to notice both sides. Tieto Corporation also follows the principles of the United Nations Global Compact and complies with the UN Convention against corruption.
(24 Jun 2012)
This is so true and maybe the future challenge for different corporations is to find the right balance between being socially responsible and making a profit so that the company will survive and workers will keep their jobs.
(20 Jun 2012)
ISO 26000 should be very important from every company to concentrate on whether it's domestic or global,they'll avoid failures!

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!

(20 Jun 2012)
Therefore I’m not so sure if this standard’s usage should be voluntary in the future, but I think that today all bigger organization should at least now what ISO 26000 keeps in and it’s great that although standard’s usage is voluntary its status is continually escalating :D

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 !
(20 Jun 2012)
Among those many many honest organizations are still those who just don’t want to make things more difficult than it is already. So from my little bit skeptic point of view.. I’m sorry to think this, but I’m sure there are many companies that just wants the benefits not the responsibility that standard comes with.

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?

(19 Jun 2012)
I think that many companies are socially responsible. At Nordeas websites it is said that they are environmentally and socially responsible. Nordea has goals with environment. Year 2009 they set goals that they have to reduce carbon release 18000 tons in the end of year 2016. The personal is going to travel 30% less and going to reduce consumption of paper both in office and for customers like sending letters. Nordea has sertification system for recurrent energy (RECS).

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.
(19 Jun 2012)
I also agree with the comment "it is fashionable to be socially responsible". But I hope this trend also causes something good in the end.

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.
(19 Jun 2012)
Hi there!

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
(19 Jun 2012)
Nokia and Finnair inform at their websites that it is very important for them to be environmentally and socially responsible. Nokia is committed to the United Nations’ Global Compact and Finnair in turn informs to be a fair and trustworthy employer. I know that both of these companies have done quite a lot of important work to help our planet and both are probably socially responsible, but somehow the latest news about Nokia’s massive layoffs and Finnair’s bonuses and CEO’s apartment mess just don’t fit to the image that these companies have built. I felt quite angry when I was reading these websites since somehow it felt untrue. I was reading about all these good things that these companies believe in and what they have done, but why would these companies act completely different way. I was starting to think that is it just fashionable to be socially responsible? And is it just good for the company’s image to participate and belong to different voluntary schemes and initiatives?
I agree with you that very often it just seems like companies are being environmentally and socially responsible because that is the trend right now, and that all they really care about is following the fashion. However, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, as long as organisations do their bit for the good of the world I guess it doesn't really matter why they do it, what their true motives are, the world still benefits from it. But the problem is those companies that mislead consumers with fancy words that make it sound like they are operating in a socially responsible manner when in fact they really are not. If only ISO 26000 and other similar standards, certificates etc. were more well-known and informed about.
(19 Jun 2012)
In my opinion, it is fashionable to be socially responsible. Companies are more and more international and are telling their social responsibility in their annual reports. Companies want to give recognition to projects that promote responsible and sustainable production and consumption. The responsible companies attracts customers, employees, partners and investors.
(19 Jun 2012)
Finnair´s recents personnel policy is hard to understand. Finnair´s chief executive officer´s case is a typically example how irresponsible can one be. He has unfortunately tried to get a salary, property and benefits himself as much as possible. He hasn´t been ready himself to save, although he should shows an example of responsibility. I have always thought that all people would be well-being and livelihood if some part of us would´n be so greedy. The seven deadly sins are used in early Christian teaching vices classification. One of them is the greedy. Nowadays the modern evils could be for example environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty, drug trafficking and consumption, morally debatable experiments, violation of fundamental rights of human nature.
I look forward to when will be found responsible leaders who truly follow the ISO 26000 standard and all social responsibility issues.
(19 Jun 2012)
One of the benefits mentioned in ISO 26000 webpage was the reputation of the company. Before doing this assignment I didn’t know anything about ISO 26000 and I didn’t even know that such standard exists. I believe that the majority of the people in the world don’t know anything about this standard. Only the most environmentally oriented people will check if the company is following ISO 26000. On the other hand I think that reputation and ISO 26000 comes to picture only when something bad happens in company. For example when it is revealed that some company abuses its workers and uses slave workers. Then it will hit that companys reputation very badly. If the company follows the ISO 26000 standard it could prevent such scandals happening.
(19 Jun 2012)
Nokia´s recent history is very bad. The stocks have fallen sharply. At the time I bought the Nokia´s stock 46 euros price and now it´s only under 2 euros. I have always bought Nokia´s mobile phones like the last Lumia 800, because I have tried to support Finnish products. Maybe I have also tried to be a little bit patriotic. Nowadays I don´t know what to do. Works end in Finland and Nokia transfer production and manufacture to developing countries. It´s a good issue that they can have a work otherwise worse conditions, but I think that they
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.
(19 Jun 2012)
I don’t envy persons who have to make decisions in big companies. Economic environment is challenging and all companies must consider how to survive and make profit. I agree with you that companies can’t manage without workers and they are worth taking care of but it’s difficult to balance between social responsibility and costs. Stakeholders and investors have demands and it’s vital to know what decisions to make for the future. I have mixed emotions on Nokia. I’m not sure should I support the company by buying its products or should I think that the future is not in Nokia phones. The Nokia workers in Salo feel disappointed and they think that Elop hasn’t kept his promise. It’s not responsibility to break a promise.
These recent mass layoffs in big companies like Nokia indicate that saving money starts from the less socially responsible end. Even if comprehensive redundancy payments and outplacement programmes are offered to those who are laid off, the damage is still done to the whole community and the company itself. The fact that CEO’s and other top management people in some organisations keep getting their huge bonuses and benefits while thousands of workers are getting fired is outrageous. If the money saving started from big bosses’ pockets, unemployment numbers would not have to rise and employees’ loyalty would not crumble. I would be curious to know if the top management people in large companies are looking at the bigger picture or just staring at the numbers and going for the quickest way to save money.
(21 Jun 2012)
By Mikko Meriläinen

Very true what you said about the bonuses, and what is even more weird is that the factory in Salo was making profit
An important point in the ISO 26000 is that the standard helps companies see and take action on social responsibility issues beyond legal compliance. All organisations have to obey the set laws and norms in their community and industry field, but while following these rules and regulations is appreciated by company stakeholders and consumers alike, they are also seen as standard procedures and no competitive or other advantage can come from it. The great thing about the ISO 26000 is that everyone benefits from it; companies who operate according to this standard have the opportunity to boost their image and relations and consequently their productivity, and at the same time the people as well as the environment in the companies' sphere of influence are treated well and with respect.
(18 Jun 2012)
I think that many of the western companies are quite social responsible. Especially Finnish companies are nowadays very green and attentive to responsible issues. One a good example is the discussion of Talvivaara,s responsibility in mining industry. It gives us the picture how important the responsibility issues are in Finland.

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.
(21 Jun 2012)
By: Mikko Meriläinen

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.
(18 Jun 2012)
Employee satisfaction is a key to a company success and that is why Nordea places great emphasis on creating a health and safe working environment for its employees. Nordea creates a flexible working conditions, offers health services and many possibilities for personal career growth.
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.
(18 Jun 2012)
Nordea is a good example of socially responsible company. For instance, major components of its sustainable work are making responsible investments, managing environmental, social and political credit risks and working against financial crime. In addition, Nordea cares about environment and operates in an environmentally friendly way. For example, Nordea works to reduce its ecological footprint by reducing energy consumption, internal travelling, customer and internal paper consumption. Moreover, basic economic understanding is highly important in everyday life. That is why Nordea offers financial education for 13-18 year-old students.
(17 Jun 2012)
Nokia provokes a discussion everywhere, it is a quite clear matter! In the intimate circle of every our Finn there is somebody which works in Nokia or has worked earlier. On the other hand, we also have our own personal relation to the products of Nokia on every one. Somebody trusts only the telephones of Nokia the principle for the reasons. Someone else's selection criteria is the properties of the telephone. What can we say today about the staff policy of Nokia? There are much lack of confidence in the management of Nokia and to Elop now in the air. Elop did not keep his word in the solutions concerning Salo. He promised that the production of Salo is not abolished. However, it was abolished. The workers experience that they have become deceived. The atmospheres are surely depressed and the enthusiasm of the doing lost. How will the confidence be rebuilt?
(18 Jun 2012)
Confidence among workers can be lost easily, but it is very difficult to built it back. If you are living in fear of layoffs or getting fired for many years, you start to look if the grass is greener of the other side of the fence. If your future looks unsecure in the company, it influences your work results and commitment very easily. You don’t give your best. And if the workers don’t give their best it will show in the end products of the company. Many workers could think that why to stress so much if the company will layoff me anyway in the future. This is like spiral where the working moral will be crushed and end products will be worse and worse.
(17 Jun 2012)
Nokia's news was a shock, A small town, a large employer terminates the many thousands of employees.This will affect to the city of Salo, and to Finnish industry.The public has spoken, that these dismissals were heading to a big change.Does the Finnish labor so expensive here that the factories are being relocated?Finnish products rye bread , mobile phones, rubber boots, they are no longer indigenous products.The world is changing, but which direction?

(21 Jun 2012)
I think Nokia should change their CEO. He has been very good at making cuts, some of them necessary, but he should have also taken care of the companys growth. Instead of cutting the employees, they should do like Apple does; Buy cheap, sell expensive. Nokia does it exactly the different way around. Nokia should be making new contacts to produce cheaper parts, and they should localize their productions better. What is the sense of making a 500€ mobile phone in a country where people want 100€ phones? They should really make better decisions than firing people.
(16 Jun 2012)
After reading the article in the HS webpage http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Mobile+phone+maker+Nokia+suggests+that+CEO+Elop+be+paid+no+Board+remuneration/1135263528267
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.
(16 Jun 2012)
After reading the Finnair's corporate responsibility report 2010, i feel like commenting on the address given in the report by its senior vice president, human resources Manne Tiensuu, on social responsibility. Part of the address reads``our task is to care for our customers as well as possible and to practice air transport operations efficiently as part of the national and international infrastructure. Our own personnel are at the heart of social responsibility, and safe gaurding their well being in work and working environment is the starting point of all that we do´´. it also goes ahead during the address that ``It is unfortunate therefore that the personnel cost have often been the target of saving programmes´´
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
I agree with you, social responsibility is first and foremost about people, companies' workforce. All companies should make their employees a priority in everything they do, as happy workforce is also productive, creative and committed. Focusing saving programmes on personnel costs only causes stress and insecurity among workers and ultimately creates a distance between the employer and the employees. Companies that take good care of their employees and avoid layoffs and redundancies until the very end not only have a positive impact on the workers' life but also on the whole community they operate in.
(16 Jun 2012)
Ou no, my comment was too long! This is the end of previous comment.Here a few examples. I think that the company must think of its own operation and of its preservation primarily. It is not the most important task of the company to offer jobs. It is its most important task to produce the result to its owners. However, the good company will take care of its workers during so good as bad days!
(21 Jun 2012)
True that, but it should not be by the companies expense only. If the company has to invest too much to the futures of people that have been let go, they have no more resources to expand and make the company to hire new people in the future. If all the resources have been taken away from innovations, how can the company grow?
(16 Jun 2012)
Yesterday's news of Nokia was shaking from the point of view of both the individual worker and the society. Its job loses about 3700 which is a big human tragedy. The society loses tax revenues hugely; those arrivals, in particular with which it has financed the services of the welfare state. What is the society responsibility of Nokia? Is it the task of the company to think about those workers' fate which now are discontinued from a company on the whole? Absolutely must!! This way Nokia also has done in earlier dismissal waves. I read Helsingin Sanomat, just today's and in it it was told how the company has supported the discontinued workers at a new beginning. Often the salary of about the year has been paid to the one that has been discontinued if he has left voluntarily. The ones then a so-called “muutosturvatuki” will be discontinued which have got. The ones which have begun and after the Nokia groove they can get the loan as entrepreneurs to begin entrepreneurship. Here a few exa
(22 Jun 2012)
Your points are very true! But we must also consider that Nokia has thousands and again thousands employees working with the organization and as we very well know the labour costs in Finland are very high. It is in Nokia's favour to let go of the employees that are highly paid but do not produce so much value to the company, after all Nokia is a global company, not a finnish one. Nokia has provided alot of work for the finnish society and helped many smaller companies to reach the global markets. At the moment we only see the resent lay-offs but we must also consider the big picture here. Nokia has done so much for a small country like Finland and it will also do so in the future but now it has make sure that it itself is able to continue it's business in the future.
(14 Jun 2012)
That was really good point of view. I think it would be good if the companies would see the benefits of the Standard ISO 26000.I agree that employees will appreciate the undertakings to which these values ​​are important, Standard by the qualitative perceptions, social responsibility are important issues.How can I learn ( employee) to pay attention to the companies which have this standard? Company should advertise, if they have any of the standard it adds value to job seekers, or what do you think about it?
(24 Jun 2012)
I was just thinking about this, that it's really difficult to get information about ethical companies that use some CSR standards. Media does not really write about the good things that companies do, only if some company (like the much discussed Nokia) lays off a lot of people. There might be some news about a new company or factory being founded, but I can’t really remember seeing any news about an already existing company doing something socially responsible. I guess that’s one challenge for companies, that they have to promote this themselves. There’s just the problem with advertising, at least I believe things more easily if it’s said by a third party, instead of the company itself...
(24 Jun 2012)
I agree with you both. It's good that some companies are trying to be really socially responsible, but often they don't get credit about that in media. So people won't know about the good things so easily. It would be also cool and useful to find information about how socially responsible other companies are.

And it would be good for companies to find ways to make their workers realize the importance of working responsible.
(14 Jun 2012)
After studying the voluntary International Standard ISO 26000 I found that it is good there is available so much guidance for companies and organizations via this standard. In addition to the companies that obtain information and advice from ISO 26000, they are also receiving many benefits by acting according to this standard. Such benefits as a reputation of a good company and employer are for example easier to earn when using operating of standard. I think that employees are respecting those companies more which are taking care also of them and not only of company’s production. When employees are satisfied with their employers the production of company will be more efficient because of the willingness of own employees. What do you think of this point of view?

(21 Jun 2012)
By: Mikko Meriläinen

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?
(29 May 2012)
On the topic of hiring people because of their gender or some other reason that has nothing to do with work-efficiency, the minister of labour Tarja Cronberg said in 2008 that the diversity of personnel is a strength for a company, and so companies should have a bi-annual check to make sure they have people representing both genders, different ages, ethnical origins, religions, sexual preferences and the disabled. (Helsingin Sanomat 9/2008)

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.
(07 Apr 2012)
Nordea’s HR strategy tells that it's Nordea's skilled and dedicated employees and their ability to deliver great customer experience that distinguish it from its competitors and make it great.

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.
(29 May 2012)
I agree. Propably no one would like to be hired just because she is a woman. If the company follows that kind of policy, it won't have the best possible employees. Still, in my opinion and in general, there must be a possibility to hire a woman to those management groups which are ruled by men. In government's public companies even 90 % of the management group members are men (Tikkanen 2012)! Even though the society has tried to make sure that women won't even try to get promotions (we have to stay home with children etc.), people (and companies) are starting to realize that women can be as good leaders and workers as men.
(08 Apr 2012)
I agree that choosing employees based on their gender should not be the primary method. However, it should not be a discriminating factor either. I somehow try to see this kind of quotas and requirements as a transition period into a phase where companies and employers in general have accepted that the gender of the applicant is of little relevance and that it should not affect the possibility of getting a position if the position itself does not require a person of a certain gender to fulfil legal or moral requirements.
(06 Apr 2012)
In Nordea's case I find it very hard to see the reason for their employ resignations. They claim it to be because their up keeping cost are raising, but their financial report shows that they are making more money every year and are keeping growing on.

Nordeas management says that employ cuts will improve their services and effiency, but how can you accomplish that by cutting people off?
(07 Apr 2012)
Nordea's case is very similar to many companies, because almost every larger company is making more money every year but still they are downsizing employees. I think that companies need to increase their winnings every year because the cost are also getting higher every year. But this is also weird because mostly the employees' salaries does not grow at the same rate or at all.

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?
(08 Apr 2012)
My own opinion is that, the Banks are so focused to moving their own services to internet (Billing, account management, etc) so they wouldn't have to use some much customer service.

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).
(29 May 2012)
To be honest, I actually do want that banks keeps their services available physically. By moving them into a digital form, it does give saves, but customer satisfy may decrease alot. We are living on a decade where nearly all companies tries to decrease their outgoings to maximise the cashflow.

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.
(08 Apr 2012)
And when we talk about the elderly, it is important to remember that many of them do not even know how to use computer or internet. So when banks are closing their offices and raising their service charges do they even care those who can´t use internet or those who don´t have internet?
(13 Apr 2012)
Referring to the recent robbery at Nordea in Haaga this week, security is one reason why banks prefer people handling their monetary issues via Internet. Of course there are certain risks there too, for example scam attempts and inadequate virus protection in customer's computer. Still, it would be unrealistic to claim that bank offices are not needed at all. If we lost our key code list or for some reason are unable to use the Internet, we need "the backup plan".
(05 Apr 2012)
"The workers are the company's most important resource." This is the most popular phrase that companies´ are repeating when they talk about their human Resources Policy and it is true because without workers there is no business. But how good care corporates really take about their workers? I think it varies but when I read the article about Foxconn and suicides among employees I could not help to wonder what is customers´ responsibility on this matter. In this case Foxconn is Apple´s, Nokia´s and other big technology company´s subcontractor. So what some company should do if it is in same situation where those big technology companies were. Do they even have any responsibility in this kind of case?
(07 Apr 2012)
I say that that companies have a responsibility to use subcontractors that are operating through the same values. I think that the company cannot say that they are doing everything to improve their workers' well being in the company if they do not require it from all their subcontractors. I would think that big companies would know that those kind of subcontractors would taint their image as well.

"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?
(03 Apr 2012)
Finnair's corporate responsibility 2010 report outlines how Finnair's largest financial expenditure items consist of equipment, fuel and personnel costs.

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.
(05 Apr 2012)
It is quite true that fuel and equipment are things Finnair can not reduce costs from. The equipment needs to be up-to-date to ensure the quality and safety of the operations.

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.
(04 Apr 2012)
The discussion around Finnair has been very negative recently. I must say that Finnair's way to cut expenses throughout diminishing personnel was'nt the best solution.

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.
(29 May 2012)
I think the lay-offs necessarily couldn´t fairly be judged as an outsider, if it wasn´t for those bonuses. After all, Finnair is a company and aiming to make profit, and as stated above, the personnel management is the only, or at least easiest, way of saving. This time the personnel management meant firing.

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.
(29 May 2012)
In my opinion, now when there's been some discussion about Finnair's ways to do profit, firing employees should not be the first choice. As Tapio already said, it is the easy way, but there should be a thorough scan trough the whole company to check where improvement is needed. For example if there are some "bad habits", which causes losses for the company, should be enchanted.

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.
(06 Apr 2012)
I agree with Tiina in this case. When big companies lay its staff off to cut expenses and give big bonuses for management it doesn't look very good for the audience. People do not trust anymore companies who do that and people start "voting with their feet" and use other airlines instead.

In other words: These kind of actions diminishes the company's credibility and causes unwanted consequences.
(08 Apr 2012)
There's also the effect of employees not wanting to apply to open positions at Finnair. There are a lot of other airlines to get more stable employments from and this will ultimately cause effects to Finnair's quality as well. In my opinion this was a very narrow minded solution to give bonuses.
(03 Apr 2012)
According to Susan Meriläinen and Antti Tienari the organization's staff diversity belongs to socially responsible business.

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.
(07 Apr 2012)
I think that maybe Nordea means that if they have to choose between the employees, that are applying to the same job place, they will choose in favour of the person with a different background. I base my opinion on the beginning of that sentence which says "we are trying to recruit and to commit qualified and well motivated people".

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.
(05 Apr 2012)
I personally don't quite understand the idea of taking cultural diversity in the work community as an intrinsic value. What is the actual added value of hiring people from different cultures?
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?
(08 Apr 2012)
I think this is dependent on a particular case: for example if a company is planning to start operating in Russia, it might be very valuable to have an employee who knows the culture and the ways of working in the country. Of course that does not necessarily mean the company has to hire someone from the specific country though. Cultural diversity among employees might sometimes also lead to new ways of working and learning from other cultures to improve efficiency etc.
(21 Jun 2012)
Especially in some african cultures it might be very important that you know the right persons. Knowing the right persons can make it a lot easier to survive through the byrocracy. I think it is also clear, that innovative people with different cultural backgrounds produce different types of innovative information.
(10 Apr 2012)
Sami, very well said
(03 Apr 2012)
I agree with you about the multi-cultural thing. I worked at Nokia for two weeks (at school's work practice program) and the staff there was very multi-cultural.

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".
(04 Apr 2012)
Nokia has played it cards pretty well by supporting the fired personnel. The layoff news are often dramatic and stopping, especially when a whole factory is closed e.g. in Salo.

But Nokia also provoked irritation when is started recruiting news staff even though the layoff negotiations where still going on.
(13 Apr 2012)
Now when Nokia is facing hard times, they have to re-think their personnel policy. They need to keep the key persons and motivate them so that they won't switch to a competitor's service - maybe even fire Elop and find the new CEO. I agree with Pasi that multicultural personnel is not value itself, but personnel with knowledge of different cultures is vital for international company like Nokia.
(08 Apr 2012)
Nokia is really extraordinary in the context of supporting personnel who are either to be laid off or are willing to search for other opportunities and agree to leave the company by taking a 'lay off package' or another sort of compensation. While they also offer training and internal transfer to different positions where applicable, it has to be taken into notice that training people for a job they are totally unqualified for is way more costly and time consuming than hiring new people who are already experienced and trained for it.