CSR Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

CSR - Essay Example The recent years have witnessed mounting pressures from various stakeholder groups for corporations to incorporate sustainability into their supply chain management procedures. Sustainable or green supply chain management can be roughly defined as the management of all activities right from the purchase from suppliers to taking back the disposed product from the customers with a special focus on improving the social and environmental impacts of those activities (Business Guide, 2003). This can be contrasted with the conventional supply chain management focused only on the activities until delivery of manufactured products or services to the customers. Therefore, the environmental responsibility has drifted away from the consumer to the manufacturer and retailer (Business Guide, 2003). However, research has suggested that companies require not only the internal capacities, resources and corporate culture to achieve sustainability but also an ‘external fit’ to achieve stra tegic collaboration with their suppliers (Kanter, 1994) which presents a challenge to companies embracing this philosophy. Furthermore, the grey area surrounding the definition of ‘sustainability’ and ‘green supply chain’ means that sustainable SCM has to be discussed in terms of reverse logistics, closed loop supply chain and various other drivers. There are several drivers for a sustainable supply chain management primarily because of the related benefits to various stakeholders. These include government Regulations, Market forces, Customers, Investors and Employees. The government owns the primary responsibility to influence supply chain sustainability. Government can achieve progress on this by effective use of bans, subsidies and incentives. The government can come up with measures such as environmental labels, licenses and product design guidelines (Business Guide, pp. 42). There are already a number of regulations in place for sustainability. These i nclude U.S. Farm security and rural investment act (2002), European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), China ROHS, E.U. Cosmetics directive, E.U. Packaging Directive, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and REACH. In addition there are International Standards such as WRAP, FLA, ICTI CARE, ISO 14000 and ISO 26000 for addressing environmental causes (Business for Social Responsibility, 2007). As far as the market forces are concerned, the relationship between brand owners and retailers is changing. Big retailers such as Wal-Mart have a huge clout over the manufacturers and control the types of products they want to keep on their shelves. In addition, the retailers and brand owners are also under tremendous pressure from NGOs and other organizations working for environmental causes. As far as the customers are concerned, there is a long way to go before the customer becomes mature enough to buy only environment friendly products. However, the shift has already begun and the customers are willing to spend a few extra dollars to promote or support green supply chain initiatives. WholeFoods charges higher prices for its products than a retailer such as Wal-Mart but is still acceptable to customers because of the sustainable practices being followed in the manufacturing of those products. Furthermore, there are several socially

How Will You Vote Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

How Will You Vote - Essay Example The applicant were right in their petition saying that if we allow even the Gay Alliance for Same Sex Marriage to hold public assemblies, why not the Hampton Roads Jihad. Giving of pamphlets and holding public demonstrations are all preserved in the â€Å"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 21)† which states that: â€Å"The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public safety (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedom of others† (icnl.org). If Hampton Roads Jihad had passed all the scrutiny, submitted necessary requirements and paid the permit cost of $97,500, then there will be no reason why the permit-issuing body –which is the City Council–should block the permit a pplicant in proceeding with the public assembly. It is the duty of the members of the City Council to scrutinize and to consequently approve permits to hold public assembly of applicants if they laboriously went through the series of procedures and if they meant to do it peaceably on the appointed date and place. If there are pressures by the public for the City Council to prohibit the Hampton Roads Jihad, it is the duty of the state to implement what has been approved and to put in place safeguard measures and contingencies that would avoid acts of violations by groups critical towards the demonstrators. Besides, the Hampton Roads Jihad has many options to contest unfavorable decisions in the higher authorities aside from the local City Council. On the other hand, if the demonstration goes awry, it is the time to disperse the members of Hampton Roads Jihad to further avoid any damages to public property and national security. Indeed, it is righteous not to allow demonstrators who a re past criminals, themselves, to hold public demonstrations. But Hampton Roads Jihad, if they are to be believed, only filed for a permit to public demonstration just to commemorate Osama Bin Laden’s birthday. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with that. No reason why we shouldn’t allow them. To say that since they believe Bin Laden, then they share the acts of Bin Laden is a misconception. The Hampton Roads Jihad has the right to uphold their belief in Osama Bin Laden, and no entity has the right to challenge their sentiment on public discourse except for the sake of and during discussions. This is preserved in the freedom of expression and of the press, and to violate this is tantamount to a great disservice to America. It is all clear in the First Amendment of the â€Å"United States Bill of Rights† which declares that: â€Å"Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the f reedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.† (Amendment I, US Bill of Rights) To vote favorably for Hampton Roads Jihad could be a great challenge that would spell the end of my career as member of a local City Council in a US soil which was once the primary target of Osama Bin Laden-led 9/11 attacks. But to prohibit the Hampton Roads Jihad in proceeding with their demonstration is a great disservice