We have constantly seen as several companies have demonstrated their "concern" and "commitment" to the difficult economic situation of most of the country's population. Recently, a major supermarket chain has decided to freeze prices of 300 essential goods until September 2008. Clearly Many applaud the measure and appreciate the "sacrifice" that makes this company. The problem is that there is no sacrifice, but a real achievement and a good example to analyze what not to do in terms of Corporate Social Responsibility.
CSR means a commitment that the company takes with the impact that their actions have on their surroundings. Those who are in this environment are called stakeholders, ie all those to whom it may affect the action of the company. In the case analyzed, the stakeholders of a supermarket chain such as that described are several types: shareholders, employees, customers, communities living near the premises and suppliers (among others). It is the latter which suffer most from such measures as price freeze. The low pricing policies or freeze them requires that someone within this group of stakeholders to bear the cost of reductions in order to transfer the benefit to consumers. In this particular case, the company or its shareholders no longer receive the same income and same profit margins by product (as evidenced by their balance sheets), which should require at least another win this low price. This is the case of suppliers. Suppliers to supermarkets, with few exceptions, are companies with small or medium size, unable to influence decisions made supermarket chain, thus makes it impossible to oppose a reduction of their prices to allow the supermarket to sell cheaper to maintain profit margins.
words, a pricing policy between large areas of trade, including supermarkets, retail, pharmacies and others where there is domination by a few large companies, is in danger of becoming a way of affecting the development of the country's industry and to harm small and medium businesses that act as suppliers. These providers, therefore, must sell at lower prices - often arbitrarily set by big business and not the free market - their products at risk, often, not to cover their own costs. If this was the situation, it is not understandable that a provider continue selling its products in a supermarket in this chain, but the market is quite stale reference for a supplier who may suffer reprisals as rebels marginalization in the future. Without considering the cost of keeping the goods and not being able to cover at least part of the costs.
In short, when we see a large supermarket chain announced that it will freeze prices for a long time, regardless of factors such as inflation or other, just hide a bad practice in CSR. The company in question does not assume the impact of their actions on all stakeholders, but favors those who considered que mejoran su imagen, sin importar las consecuencias a largo plazo en los proveedores y en la comunidad en general. Acciones como éstas sólo logran distorsionar el mercado y perjudicar a todos los entornos de la empresa. Los consumidores pueden sentir que hay un evidente beneficio para ellos, pero es sólo un resultado efímero y temporal que no es posible proyectar a largo plazo. En definitiva, por una estrategia que pretende netamente mejorar la imagen de una empresa, caemos en el viejo dicho de "pan para hoy, hambre para mañana".
CSR means a commitment that the company takes with the impact that their actions have on their surroundings. Those who are in this environment are called stakeholders, ie all those to whom it may affect the action of the company. In the case analyzed, the stakeholders of a supermarket chain such as that described are several types: shareholders, employees, customers, communities living near the premises and suppliers (among others). It is the latter which suffer most from such measures as price freeze. The low pricing policies or freeze them requires that someone within this group of stakeholders to bear the cost of reductions in order to transfer the benefit to consumers. In this particular case, the company or its shareholders no longer receive the same income and same profit margins by product (as evidenced by their balance sheets), which should require at least another win this low price. This is the case of suppliers. Suppliers to supermarkets, with few exceptions, are companies with small or medium size, unable to influence decisions made supermarket chain, thus makes it impossible to oppose a reduction of their prices to allow the supermarket to sell cheaper to maintain profit margins.
words, a pricing policy between large areas of trade, including supermarkets, retail, pharmacies and others where there is domination by a few large companies, is in danger of becoming a way of affecting the development of the country's industry and to harm small and medium businesses that act as suppliers. These providers, therefore, must sell at lower prices - often arbitrarily set by big business and not the free market - their products at risk, often, not to cover their own costs. If this was the situation, it is not understandable that a provider continue selling its products in a supermarket in this chain, but the market is quite stale reference for a supplier who may suffer reprisals as rebels marginalization in the future. Without considering the cost of keeping the goods and not being able to cover at least part of the costs.
In short, when we see a large supermarket chain announced that it will freeze prices for a long time, regardless of factors such as inflation or other, just hide a bad practice in CSR. The company in question does not assume the impact of their actions on all stakeholders, but favors those who considered que mejoran su imagen, sin importar las consecuencias a largo plazo en los proveedores y en la comunidad en general. Acciones como éstas sólo logran distorsionar el mercado y perjudicar a todos los entornos de la empresa. Los consumidores pueden sentir que hay un evidente beneficio para ellos, pero es sólo un resultado efímero y temporal que no es posible proyectar a largo plazo. En definitiva, por una estrategia que pretende netamente mejorar la imagen de una empresa, caemos en el viejo dicho de "pan para hoy, hambre para mañana".
0 comments:
Post a Comment