Polo Ralph Lauren and Habitat for Humanity

Polo Ralph Lauren is a luxury clothing company located in New York City. They are most known for their clothing, however they do make accessories and furniture. Asides for changing the clothing industry in the America, Ralph Lauren has done many other great things for his country. His outlook on corporate social responsibility is just as impressive as his line of clothing.

Corporate social responsibility is defined as "A commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of our workforce and their families as well as t

he local community at large" Ralph Lauren and Habitat for Humanity have joined forces to develop a foundation referred to as the G.I.V.E. campaign. The letters stand for Get Involved, Volunteer, and Exceed. This is exactly what Ralph Lauren and Habitat for Humanity have done in their new joint venture in which they donate eco-frindly denim for housing insulation. They have an initiative called "Give your jeans a new home" where celebrities, such as Lindsay Lohan, Gwen Stefani, Sheryl Crow, Tobey Maguire and many more, and high school through college students are all donating their jeans so they can be turned into insulation for a historic building in

the South Bronx that will offer several affordable housing units.

Polo Ralph Lauren works hard to ensure consumer satisfaction in their clothing as well as their approach to corporate social responsibility. They strive to enhance the lives of all employees and employees families, while enhancing the lives of less fortunate Americans at the same time.

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/17946-Polo-Ralph-Lauren-Foundation-Donates-Eco-Friendly-Denim-Insulation-for-Housing-Rehabilitation-in-the-Bronx

Levi’s wearing social responsibility with pride

Nowadays the competition between business companies had been increased. Especially for retail industry, there are more and more companies selling the similar goods, there are too much choices for consumers. As a result, companies have come up with their own strategy, for better profit. However, it is the basis that any company should make decisions regarding corporate social responsibility. All business organizations, regardless of their size, have a corporate responsibility.

Taking Levis for an example, as a progressive business knows they can benefit us all and improve their consumer standing by enacting plans that show a commitment to community and environment. Levis had joined with Goodwill to announce a partnership that promotes environmental benefits. They have announced a new collaboration in an initiative they have labeled “Care Tag for Our Planet”. This plan might be simple, yet the message that Levis is passing out is very important. They will add an additional tag to their clothing with a very specific message describing the project. The tag includes eco-friendly suggestions on how to best care for your new clothing and equally importantly the best way to dispose of your clothing in a responsible fashion. According to Levis, their goal is “Simple care and recycling guidelines can go a long way toward reducing climate change impact. Wear responsibly and help us reduce the environmental impact of the clothes you love to wear.” A big thumb up to Levi’s for their commitment to our environment. They are not just selling their products; they are letting people know how to do better for our environment.

This is a good example of standing out in regarding in CSR. Companies shouldn’t only consider their profit, corporate social responsibility should be taken into consideration. A company's any decision might affect the environment and the safety of their workers or their neighbors. They should think about what is the shout- and long-term costs of ignoring all the environmental concerns. Companies that have a CSR focus concentrate on ways to make such decisions in a socially sound way.

by Jing Wang

Better Business;

http://www.miratelinc.com/blog/levis-wearing-social-responsibility-with-pride/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miratel+%28Miratel+Solutions%29

One for One

A credible CSR policy (CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility) includes all departments and positions at a company. It takes into consideration employee interests, environmentally sound operations, environmental protection, humane working conditions all along the supply chain, and consumer protection.

TOMS Shoes is a shoe company that from its creation has made corporate social responsibility one of the company’s core principles. TOMS Shoes was founded by Blake Mycoskie, who after a trip to Argentina was inspired to create a shoe company that gives back. Considering sustainability, Mycoskie concluded that starting a business rather than a charity would help his impact last longer.

TOMS Shoes have fulfilled their promise and for every pair they sell they give one pair to a child in need. By this practice the company has given children in developing countries over 1,000,000 pairs of shoes since the One for One movement launched in 2006. The canvas shoes have been given to children in the United States (Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and Florida), Argentina, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Guatemala, Haiti, and South Africa. TOMS are sold at more than 500 stores nationwide and internationally, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Whole Foods, which features styles made from recycled materials. In January 2009, TOMS collaborated with Element Skateboards to create a line of TOMS shoes, skate decks and longboards. For each pair of TOMS Element shoes and/or skateboard bought, one of the same was given to kids at the Indigo Skate camp in the village Isithumba in Durban, South Africa. Blake Mycoskie is hoping to expand the One for One model into other areas like housing, water and schoolbooks. Mycoskie would like to create partnerships with companies so his customers can buy what they need while the same things are given to those who need them across the globe.

Other companies such as Walmart, which I talked about in my last post, also have charitable aspirations. The Walmart Foundation mission statement mentions the company’s objective to improve the live for people in their communities through financial contributions, donations and volunteerism. The Walmart foundation has pledged to give $2 billion dollars by 2015 to help hunger relief efforts in the United States.

Besides Making Money........

Corporate social responsibility has a broad definition, which, according to our text book, includes human rights, environment and employments etc. however, nobody would deny that it relates to charity. As a retail company, Target is one of the most generous companies in US, even globally. Target gives on average over $150 million per year. Its own corporate bylaw state it must give 5% of its pre-tax profits to charity. For its generous, Target ranked 11^th in Fortune Magazine’s “Top 20 Most Admired Companies” for 2007. Although Target’s mission statement is only about providing better products and serves to its consumer, Target’s action shows its strong corporate social responsibility of society.

Best Buy is also another big company which is being very generous of charity. It donates about 1% of its pre-tax profit to different charities and has a goal of eventually reaching about 5%. Although it does not have an official mission statement, its website says that its goal is to “solve the unmet needs of our customers—and we rely on our employees to solve those puzzles.” It does not only donate to charities, but also think much of its own employees.

A good company should not only be able to serve its consumers with heart, but should also be responsible towards its employees and society. Meanwhile, consumers can also do something to help. If consumers choose to shop more at those companies, then we can both help this world become a better place to be.

CSR promotes the Aid of Global Issues

Clothing retailers often have similar views of CSR. Most of them strive to give customer satisfaction as well promote images of success for whatever demographic they sell too.
What makes a company stand out though is the amount of charity they give from their profits. Charity is a very important part of the Corporate Social Responsibility. Giving to specific charities inspires people to buy the clothes and also help a good cause.
A company with a popular campaign is Gap inc. Gap is a clothing store that sells bold and basic clothing to men, women and children. In 2006, Gap paired up with Project Red which helps fight the global aids epidemic. Gap sold Project Red clothing in stores and donated 50% of all those products to Project Red. Gap’s mission statement says that “We’re dedicated to improving the world around us and lessening our impact on the planet. Doing what’s right comes naturally to the people who work at Gap, and our employees are the heart of our company’s commitment to social and environmental good” (gap.com). Gap employees are courteous and naturally friendly and helpful. Gap promotes multiple campaigns and expects its employers to be knowledgeable with global issues--especially on sustainability.
Another infamous brand, H&M promotes their ban on child labor and dedication to providing high quality and creatively designed products. H&M works with several charities such as UNICEF and WaterAid. UNICEF helps improve the conditions of children’s lives across the globe as well as stop child labor. WaterAid works to improve the sanitation and availability of water around the world. H&M says on their website, “At H&M, quality is about more than making sure that our products meet or exceed our customers' expectations. It also means that they have to be manufactured under good conditions and that our customers must be satisfied with us as a company.” H&M’s workers must deliver good products but also ensure that they are made without child labor. H&M believes that by manufacturing clothes in good conditions (i.e without child labor) the customer will feel more satisfied.
By giving money to charities, large companies such as Gap and H&M can help spread awareness to their customers about these issues and also lend a hand to help the organizations directly.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4650024.stm
www.gap.com
www.h&m.com

Concern about the stakeholders.

One of the ethical issue in retail industry is that how the company treat their employees. Employees are a part of the stakeholders of a company; their job condition should be taking into consideration.

About 2 years ago, an event about employees’ human rights has drawn public’s attention. Foxconn, Apple's longtime manufacturing partner in China, has extremely strict rules for people who work in there. In fact, there was one worker committed suicide for a fourth-generation iPhone prototype for which he was responsible went missing. The 25-year-old worker was responsible for shipping iPhone prototypes to Apple; he reported the missing device to Foxconn after realizing that one of the 16 iPhones he received was no longer in his possession. According to the worker’s friends, the worker has been interrogated inappropriate. He can’t stand the pressure then committed suicide. Although Foxconn was not fully responsible for the worker’s death, it has some affect. The worker wouldn’t committee suicide if not for the tremendous pressure from foxconn.

The foxconn event is just an example for the loss of human rights of employees. Sweatshops in Asia are not a few. Being indifferent about employees’ human rights is unethical. It should no longer happen again.

Buy More or Buy Right

I think the key ethical issue for retail strores is facing is to dicede if all we try to do is making the consumes buy more. Or in the other words, if the industries care about waste. We can always see this phenomena happens at retial industires, "buy on get one 50% off", "buy more save more" etc. And this happens more at supermarkts. Sure this will absolutly help sales, but this could also cause waste. The first harm seems like only come to the consumers, they bought what they did not really need, but eventually come to our environment.

Also, for this ethical issuse the industires players are barely being challenged by this issuse. However, the real problem is, if the goal of retail is to sell as much as possible or to sell as much as good for the consumers. Just like Nestle said in her article "The Supermarket: Prime Real Estate", the object of the marketing, retail game is to "maximize sales and profit consistent with cuntomer convenience"(20).

For many people this may still doesn't weight as much as an ethical issuse, but as we all know, our environment is getting worse, it maybe time to stop allure consumers buy more needless products.

Ethical EPA

America is the land of opportunity.  Opportunity for people to create families, and to create a better life for themselves.  There is one thing standing in the way of families creating homes for themselves and that is known as the E.P.A., or the Environmental Protection Agency.

The home builders of America help each family by selling them a place to live and a place to raise a family, the builders give the people of America a home.  The EPA takes away everyones chance of having a home to call their own.  The question that arises is, is this ethical?  Is it ethical to have a government funded agency tell people of American they can not buy a house to raise their family in?  The EPA argues it is ethical because the nasty home builders are tearing down trees and taking away a family of squirrel's home.  The poor squirrel will have to find another tree to call home if the nasty builder cuts down a tree to make a house for a family.  The EPA thinks it is terrible to take away trees from the animals, they think it is unethical.

The other side of the argument is much more logical.  How can one argue that it is more important that a squirrel has a place to live then a family having a place to live?  The truth of it is, since America is the land of opportunity, every person should have the opportunity to buy a house.  The EPA is making it impossible to buy a house because it might disturb the turtle or the squirrel.  If people would look into the laws, they would see that each builder has to plant about four trees on every lot, that way the squirrel and turtle can share the living space with the human family.

The EPA is an unethical organization for the home builder retailers because it deprives families their rights to build a family.

Shop till you drop? - Lillyanna Paulino

When we think about shopping we might think about the clichéd and over used montages in movies and the silly character in the movie, which is obsessed with shopping. Well she might not be so silly after all. The retail industry encompasses the sale of all kinds of goods is one of the biggest industries in business and one of the most directly connected to consumers and buyers. It is estimated that two thirds of the U.S.’s GDP comes from retail consumption. But in recent years due to the economic recession the retail industry has been lagging behind. According to the latest annual report from the U.S. Census Bureau (calendar year 2009), the total amount of sales for the U.S. Retail Industry (including food service and automotive) was $4.13 trillion. This is the second consecutive annual decline for the retail industry. Most major multi-store retail chains had sales declines in the first part of 2009, but saw improvements toward the end of the year, which have extended into 2010. In the retail industry, the recession caused record-breaking declines in sales, inventories, and consumer confidence, and stock prices. Experts are estimating the after effects of the recession will last from 18 months to 11 years.

Maintaining good business ethics while keeping consumers happy is a key challenge for the retail industry. Since they have to find a way to sell good quality products at low prices and also produce them at low prices too, one of the main ethical issues that this industry has faced in recent years is that the production of low priced products means that many of these articles sold in stores like Walmart or Kmart come from places around the world where the wages paid to workers are dismal and the working conditions border on abusive. These pricing pressures, in turn, fall upon the backs of workers who also have strong incentive to continue working these jobs. While earning one dollar an hour may sound low to Americans, that might be a good wage for employees from places where economic opportunities are scarce such as rural China or the slums of Manila. So they also have a powerful incentive to keep quiet when abuses do occur. But here’s where the ethical dilemma gets trickier. Our growing demand for these  products triggers some labor abuses. But it also creates economic opportunities for people trying to feed their families, escape poverty, boost their living standards and perhaps one day make the same buying decisions that many Americans will consider this holiday season. Enter a consumer Catch 22: buying more may exploit some workers. But a boycott of those same products could also harm those it was trying to protect. So what is the right answer?

By Lillyanna Paulino

Fur Real?

One ethical issue within the retail business is the fur industry.  That is, how animals are caught, treated and killed and eventually turn into fur coats.

Fur coats, stoles, and hates are popular items among the wealthy and celebrities.  They are expensive, which means there is a large economic profit.  But what’s the real story behind these fur coats? Well, it all starts when animals are captured in areas such as China and Canada (peta.org). 

The first harm comes to the animals when the trappers catch them, which is through steel jaw traps, water-traps (which drown the animal), and with other painful instruments. The methods are highly dangerous and cause a lot of suffering. 
Next, the animals are beaten, suffocated, electrocuted or even suffocated to death (peta.org). 

Many buyers from the United States know that these harmful acts are going on, but to little to stop it, and even less to let their customers know where the fur is actually coming from. 

In reality, popular US stores sometimes lie about where their fur is coming and what brand it is.  In 2008, the popular department stores Macy’s and Bloomingdales were under speculation and eventually a lawsuit was filed about the mislabeling of fur garments (The Humane Society).  The problem was that the fur garments sold to the customers did not have the correct labeling.  Macy’s and Bloomingdales worked with the Humane society to make the labels more clear and show buyers exactly what they were buying.  The consequences of the new labels mostly affect the companies themselves, because it forced the companies to purchase higher quality fur as opposed to buying lower quality and labeling it as high quality. There was not a large profit loss from the new labeling since the cliental of these department stores is generally upper-class.

 The ethical question in this situation was the mislabeling of the fur.  That action shows that the companies want to ignore where the fur actually came from, which was most likely a starving animal that was killed in a slow and painful manner. 

Sources:
peta.org
humanesociety.org

By Margot Waldron