Starbucks-Management-Paper-writing-homework-help

We can write your essays! Let our essay writing experts help you get that A in your next essay. Place your order today, and you will enjoy it. No plagiarism.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Assignment 2 is a critical analysis assignment. For this assignment, we are assigning the company Starbucks and asking that you think of, research and consider a “Corporate Social Responsibility” (“CSR”) problem or opportunity facing Starbucks.

Exactly what corporate social responsibility is, is not 100% clear and is the subject of some controversy. Some research on this topic at the outset might help. However, the most common definitions of CSR define CSR as a responsibility of businesses to behave ethically and contribute to economic development of the business while also improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the community and society as a whole. There are some “laissez faire” capitalists who will say that there’s no such thing as corporate social responsibility and that the responsibility of a business is to maximize profits for its shareholder. For our purposes, we’re assuming that there is at least some level of corporate social responsibility. The extent to which you think there ought to be such responsibility can (and probably will anyway) influence your analysis.

First, you will need a research basis for your essay. NPC is providing you with 2 sources to start you off:

1. Implementing Global Corporate Citizenship: An Integrated Business Framework

Author: Crittenden, Crittenden, Pinney & Pitt

2. Starbucks Coffee Company in the 21st Century

Author: Koehn, McNamara, Kahn, Legris

Both resources can be accessed from the “slides and documents” page for this course on the NPC student website.

You may find and use any additional academically reliable resources you like. The NPC virtual library can be used to gather additional research material. The precise amount of research and the extent to which you use additional outside sources (other than the above two) is left to your discretion. A good paper can be written with just the 2 sources above, but additional sources may be helpful.

Once you’ve done your research, the next step is to write your paper. The over-all goal of your paper is to present the corporate social responsibility problem or opportunity. (This can be one you think of by yourself or one that you read about, though remember that citations are necessary whenever quoting another source.)

While there is not necessarily one “best” way to write a critical analysis paper and you can still earn a good grade with another format, we strongly suggest the following structure:

• Start with an Introduction discussing: a brief description of the background of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) problem or opportunity facing Starbucks, the stakeholders impacted; what organizational environments are relevant (external, task, and internal), and the current situation (the nature and dimension of the problem/opportunity). Your introduction must end with a specific one-sentence statement of the management problem/opportunity that your paper will address. The one-sentence statement is critical because is it frames the rest of your paper. 

• Two Alternative Solutions: Each solution must address the CSR problem/opportunity you stated in your introduction – do not address a different problem or opportunity than the one stated. State the solution first, and then explain what the solution involves – your discussion of a solution should also clarify what specific steps that Starbucks must take and what specific managers should be involved in the implementation of the solution. Use academically sound sources (example: scholarly or peer-reviewed articles) to support your solutions – with quotes and/or paraphrasing. 

• An Evaluation: Each alternative solution must be evaluated separately, using a pro/con structure. Then your evaluation should explain how the solution is feasible and what aspects of the implemented solution the organization must monitor to make sure implementation of the solution stays on track. 

• Your Recommendation: Discuss with well-reasoned arguments why one of your two stated solutions is the best course of action at this company as compared to the one you did not choose, and support your choice with academically sound sources.

• A list of References must be attached, as a separate page to the critical analysis paper. The Reference list should be APA formatted (as an alternative, MLA or Chicago style formatting is also acceptable). If you are unfamiliar with these citation styles, the Purdue Online Writing Lab can be of great help. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/ 

Length: The minimum length is 750 words. There is no maximum length. The exact length is left to your discretion.

Please review the Sample Critical Analysis Paper with comments (accessible from the slides and documents page) to get a visual picture of how your paper should be structured.

Sample documnet to be copied:

This sample answer is protected by copyright. It may not be copied in any format. Introduction BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, was founded in the early 1900s as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company by William D’Arcy. It was the first oil company to recognize global warming and has invested in renewable energy to position itself as an “environmentally friendly organization” (Fraedrich, Ferrel, & Ferrel, 2013, p.190). Yet throughout its life, BP has been involved in “fraud, environmental crimes, negligence leading to worker deaths, and endangering habitats”, contradicting its market repositioning as a green company (Fraedrich, et al., 2013, p.191). From an oil refinery explosion in Texas to faulty pipes in Alaska, BP disappointed stakeholders and earned popular dissatisfaction. “Regular routine cleaning of the pipes is simple and would have prevented the 2006 oil leaks in Alaska,” an unethical lapse of maintenance diligence (Fraedrich et. al, 2013). Balmer (2011) writes that BP’s “…credentials have, increasingly, sat uneasily with the oil behemoth’s track record in terms of safety including…earlier safety transgressions in South Houston and in Alaska.” Later, in pushing for deeper drilling, BP created the worst spill in US history since the 139 million gallon Ixtop spill of 1979-1980 (Friedman, 2011). An explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig damaged an oil well a mile under the surface, after which 2.5 million gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf of Mexico daily (Fraedrich, et. al., 2011, p.196). Official investigation concluded that BP found profit more rewarding than safety. Instead of choosing a solid product they saved money and used the cheapest pipes on the market (Fraedrich, et. al., 2011, p. 197). Another problem was their emergency contingency plan, which was revealed to be inaccurate. It fulfilled the requirement What requirement? More specificity needed, but did not aid in recovery. BP has obligations to powerful stakeholders with differing interests. BP must always seek new energy sources and growth to stay in business and please shareholders, but past disasters and ethical lapses weigh heavily on its public relations and undermine its rebranding as a green energy company (Balmer, Powell, and Greyser, 2011). BP’s ethical dilemma is that it must implement effective cultural change to regain stakeholders’ trust while earning profit. Good description of issues and use of issues to demonstrate how they lead to the ethical dilemma. Alternative Solution 1 To regain stakeholders’ trust, BP must transform its culture while maintaining a profit. To do this, it can implement a “performancebased” approach to strengthen its environmental and safety standards. Good clear separate statement of your solution. BP can learn from other drilling environments, like Norway’s, that “currently are the leaders in its industry in both environmental sustainability and safety” (Hanson, 2011). Norway has drilled in the Norwegian Continental Shelf for over fifty years using the performance-based approach (Hanson, 2011). Norwegian regulations “specify certain performances that the operator must achieve, but then gives the operator autonomy in how it wants to achieve it” (Hanson, 2011). Applying this means “offshore regulation oversight responsibilities change from regulator to operator” and although it does not eliminate risk, it avoids the complacency that comes with checking off boxes (Hanson, 2011). Well supported and well explained – Good use of the source – used quotes in a manner supporting statements. BP’s ethics officer should study how the Norwegian regulatory system functions and implement similar procedures, conducting operator training and “making sure the company is in compliance with government regulations” (Fraedrich, et al., 2013, p.371). The ethics officer would need to draft internal “regulations” for operators, demand plans for implementation, and track results. Good discussion – steps to implement are clear and evidence feasibility. Evaluation 1 A positive result of implementing the “performance-based” approach is that it will allow BP to make operators responsible for safety violations instead of placing blame on equipment or the nature of the operation. The downside of this approach is that every operator has to be re-trained and certified, and the rig cannot operate until they make a “consent application” that states they have an emergency response plan in place (Hanson, 2012). Good pro/con structure. In the end, feasible, at this company? The ethics officer’s oversight role is to ensure that every employee has received appropriate training and certifications before they can resume working. Once everyone is properly trained and certified, they can be on their way to resuming tasks in a different, but hopefully safer way, which will help decrease the risk of accidents and potentially save millions. Clear and logical ‘monitoring’ proposal. Alternative Solution 2 Resolving BP’s dilemma requires true ethical decision-making changes that must be balanced with profitability. PEARL could restructure BP’s strategic-planning to create a “going green” marketplace advantage. Good clear separate statement of solution. PEARL replaces “the five corporate virtues” of ‘efficient production’, ‘resource management’, ‘effective advertising’, ‘correct pricing’, and ‘right relationship’ to be more responsive to sustainable development values (Bilgin, 2009). P stands for perception friendliness: using advertising to communicate, not manipulate. E, for environmental friendliness, calls for promoting environmental protection in addition to damage prevention. A is an “action commitment” in environmental and social areas that impact long-run sustainable development. R, for relationship commitment, “goes beyond partnership and traditional feedback processes and includes interactive and reciprocal governance relations with concerned institutions and people (Bilgin, 2009).” L, for locality, considers local values and concerns in decision-making and local networking to improve performance. Well supported and well explained – Used the sources well with paraphrasing and quotes to support statements. The ethics officer would totally rework the corporate strategic plan to center on PEARL values. This would be by nature a top-down effort, but the ethics officer would need to enlist support from many departments and levels to evaluate policies, procedures, and plans against the new PEARL paradigm. Clear, well argued steps. Evaluation 2 PEARL’s “perception friendliness” would jettison the “greenwashing” approach of past branding efforts (Parguel, Benoit-Moreau, & Larceneux, 2011) in favor of more accurate communication. This could help rebuild trust in BP’s communications, but could be problematic if BP can’t transition to a truly green approach. Environmental friendliness and action commitment would satisfy stakeholders displeased with past severe environmental damage, but might be problematic in the environmentally dangerous arena of deep-water drilling. PEARL requires an agile company to succeed, but. BP does not have a great track record for implementing change. PEARL does not try to change employee behavior but instead changes company goals, leading the way to ethical culture change rather than policing it. This requires less companywide buy-in than BP’s past efforts, making it more feasible. Well-argued feasibility. Good pro/con structure. Proper adherence to PEARL would be policed as part of the strategic performance evaluation and re-planning process inherent in any strategic management process. To monitor effectiveness, the ethics officer needs to participate in the performance review phase of the strategic plan, seeking areas where the firm failed to meet PEARL goal categories and identifying what went wrong. . Clear, wellargued ‘monitoring’ proposal. Recommendation BP should implement the PEARL competitive sustainability model to resolve this ethical dilemma. While both alternative solutions alter company goals, the PEARL model is more comprehensive, pulling desired behaviors a step further with extra categories including “environmental friendliness”, “action commitment”, and “locality” (Bilgin, 2009). Good comparison. The performance-based approach may resolve some issues, but PEARL adds “a set of institutional values that respond to current challenges of (sustainable development) issues,” working to “transform SD criteria into a corporate competitiveness strategy” (Bilgin, 2009). Replacing Bilgin’s (2009) “five corporate virtues” with a competitive sustainability model could create a greater marketplace advantage than a performance-based approach. . According to Ameer and Othman (2012) this could address BP’s profit motive as “companies which place emphasis on sustainability practices have higher financial performance measured by return on assets, profit before taxation, and cash flow from operations compared to those without such commitments.” Friedman (2010) studied the Gulf disaster and found that greed, via cost-cutting, had a central role in risk decisions that caused the catastrophe, resolving that “…firms must consider risk in decision making. These risks should include possible harm to the environment, employees, customers, the United States, the world, and, of course, shareholders” (Friedman, 2010). Bilgin (2009) noted that BP was “very serious about safety” but failed to create “safe working procedures and practices, and they have difficulty applying the lessons learned from refinery to refinery or even from within refineries.” PEARL resolves this by creating company-wide priorities rather than performance-based operator goals. For these reasons BP should adopt PEARL to resolve its ethical dilemma. Well-reasoned arguments one of two stated solutions is the best course of action at this company as compared to the not chosen, and very good use of sources to support choice with at least two peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. Good tie-in to the stated ethical dilemma. References Good format, type, number, and variety of sources. Ameer, R. & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 61-79. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1063-y Balmer, J., Powell, S., & Greyser, S. (2011). Explicating ethical corporate marketing. Insights from the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe: The ethical brand that exploded and then imploded. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0902-1 Bilgin, M. (2009). The PEARL model: Gaining competitive advantage through sustainable development. Journal of Business Ethics,85(1) 545-554. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0210-1 Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. & Ferrell, O.C. (2013). Ethical decision making in business: A managerial approach (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South Western, Cengage Learning. Friedman, H. H. & Friedman, L. W. (2010). Lessons from the twin mega-crises: the financial meltdown and the BP oil spill. Journal of Business Systems, Governance & Ethics, 5(4), 34-45. Retrieved from: http://www.jbsge.vu.edu.au/past.html Hanson, A.L. (2011). Offshore drilling in the United States and Norway: A comparison of prescriptive and performance approaches to safety and environmental regulation. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 23 (4), 555-575. Retrieved from: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/journals/gielr/index2.html Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter “greenwashing”: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15-28. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-09012. 

Writerbay.net

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper