Closing two stores in high-crime areas may have been viewed as a good business idea by the company themselves, but for those neighborhoods it has probably made the area less marketable. While the company reported losing money as the reason to close those stores, their other social actions lead to me to believe their motives were more perception and fear. If the stores were left open and a more vigilant effort to include social responsibility in their business model, there could have been a better community outreach and a chance for those areas to improve from the grocery store’s presence. Doing some market research and learning why they were losing money, they could have offered unique amenities it might not have had, such as their organic and health related foods. Before closing the stores the owners should have consider how their decision to move out would negatively affect the area, such as newly vacant lots, less availability to nutritious foods, and less employment for the local citizens. Being socially responsible means evaluating the cost of doing the right things for both your company and the community at large.
Company Q has made a very poor decision to reject the offer to participate in a local charity that gives back to the community in which they do business. By wanting to throw away the food rather than provide nutrition to poverty stricken people is such a detriment to their social responsibility reputation. And to also cite their worries that their own employees would be stealing that food instead of going to drop it off at the food bank represents the huge divide of trustworthiness between the owners and their staff. In order to mitigate some of their poor choices, the company should start their own companywide program that will not only help the local society, but start a campaign of respect and honesty among their employees. To both donate to the food bank and ensure