March 16, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I used to work for a bank and the unit was student loan processing. The bank did asked the employees to do a lot of community services at working hours (only approved by your managers). However I did felt it was scheme as part of advertisement that they give back to the community. A big poster was put up on the wall. A lot of the company used the community service as their advertisment eg Wal-mart.
Bill Gates wanted more H-1 employees. Why? He said there was not enough technical people working in computer. On the other hand, they also outsource a lot of work to India, China and some other countries. A lot of students these days do not want to major in computer science because they do not see the future. Most of the high school graduates are major in medical field because there is one field that can never outsource to anywhere. When you are sick, they cannot ship to hospital in India!!!!!!
It is chicken and egg situation. The bank I worked for was student loan processing, but instead of hiring a computer science student as intern, they rather outsource to India. Those students borrow over $100,000 to get their education but they could not even get an intern job from the bank they borrow money from. When a student graduates from college, the average loan is $100,000. Most college cost $50,000 a year including room and board ($1200 for books and supply) these days. Four years college education costs $200,000.
If those big company liked Microsoft giving out more scholarship to students majoring computer science, I think it would be much better lobbying to have more H-1 visa or at least it makes more sense to me.
Social Responsibility is not just helping people in Africa or other third worlds. A lot of the people in US need help too.
just my 2 cents.
March 21, 2007 at 8:54 am
Your view often leads to actions that harm share holder value. Maximizing profits often leads to unintended cosequences. These unintended consequences may be mitigated by viewing corporate responsibility through the perspective of stake holder theory.
From wikipedia:
As originally detailed by R. Edward Freeman (1984), stakeholder theory attempts to ascertain which groups are stakeholders in a corporation and thus deserve management attention. In short, it attempts to address the "Principle of Who or What Really Counts."
In traditional input-output models of the corporation, the firm uses the inputs of investors, employees, and suppliers to convert inputs into usable (salable) outputs which customers buy and return to the firm some capital benefit. By this model, firms only address the needs and wishes of those four parties: investors, employees, suppliers, and customers.
Stakeholder theory recognizes that there are other parties involved, including governmental bodies, political groups, trade associations, trade unions, communities, associated corporations, etc. This view of the firm is used to define the specific stakeholders of a corporation (the normative theory (Donaldson) of stakeholder identification) as well as examine the conditions under which these parties should be treated as stakeholders (the descriptive theory of stakeholder salience). These two questions make up the modern treatment of Stakeholder Theory.
Viewing 2 posts - 16 through 16 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply