Problem: Google's Multiple CSR Strategies

Google hopes to use capitalism to make life better around the world. Google, through its $2 billion charitable arm, Google.org, makes many generous charitable contributions, but its version of CSR reaches beyond philanthropic efforts to attack some of the world's biggest problems (specifically, the environment, global poverty, and global health) by investing in businesses, lobbying for political causes, and directing portions of its employees' time to developing business and technology solutions for those problems. Google aids nonprofits by providing Google products free or at steep discounts and helps with disaster relief by making storm paths, emergency numbers, and donation opportunities readily accessible. Google.org has invested $45 million in recent years in an array of renewable energy projects hoping to back projects with breakthrough potential. Google is only one of many companies that have expanded their CSR efforts from giving to building. Many of those companies view social responsibility as workable only if it contributes to the strategic mission of the business and ultimately to the bottom line. Nike, for example, turned aggressively to social responsibility measures as a way of restoring its brand image after criticism for its use of global sweatshop labor. Consumers are willing to pay higher prices at Whole Foods Market, the healthy food grocery chain, in part because of the company's reputation for good works. Goldman Sachs hopes to make money while doing good by investing in the nation's first "social impact bonds," innovative financing arrangements designed to leverage private money to underwrite social programs. One Goldman Sachs bond program of up to $7 million helps finance early childhood education for at-risk children in Salt Lake City, and a $9.6 million investment is using behavioral therapy intervention in an effort to reduce recidivism among male prisoners at Rikers Island, New York City's primary jail. Goldman will profit on these bond arrangements only if the projects' goals (improved educational results and reduced recidivism) are achieved. Savings from the performance improvements will be used to pay back Goldman Sac hs and other investors.98

Questions

1. In general, we understand decisions to lay off employees when companies are losing money, but how should we feel about profitable companies that lay off employees? Powerful executive, Barry Diller, in 2009, condemned "preemptive" layoffs: The idea of a company that's earning money, not losing money, that's not, let's say, "industrially endangered," to have just cutbacks [sic] so they can earn another $12 million or $20 million or $40 million in a year where no one's counting is really a horrible act when you think about it on every level.99 Do you think a socially responsible company that operates at a profit would engage in layoffs? Explain.

2. Some critics argue that Wall Street's financial collapse in 2008-2009 was, at least in part, a product of male "group think." They claim that men take excessive risks and women are more comprehensive thinkers. Hence, they say the financial community needs more women: Barnard College president Deborah Spar dubbed our predicament [the Wall Street crash] a "one gender crash," and The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof wonders if we might all have been better off had it been "Lehman Brothers and Sisters."100 Do finance companies have a social responsibility to hire more women? Explain.