As a part business major, I decided to pursue the correlations Sampson draws in his chapter "Social Altruism, Cynicism, and the 'Good Community' of collective efficacy, altruistic character and the moral/legal cynycism to the wellbeing of communities. Specifically, I wanted to target in on the positive impact a business can have, a.k.a. altruism, on the world. To expound, I wanted to be able to prove locally and corporately, that business if pursued ethically, legally, and morally and following an altruistic bushiness model could indeed create a highly successful business venture. Not only financially but also creating a social impact that could be life-changing.
Sampson pulls data from two experiments in the chapter and both support the the facts that the more collective efficacy and altruistic character that are present in a community the better it's wellbeing. The third interesting discovery came by way of the greater the presence of the moral or legal cynicism in the community the lower the community wellbeing. See the figure from Sampson's text, (232).
Because we can pull these distinctions from these neighborhood groups we can also correlate these findings towards a business model's success. If we think of the business as a whole similar to that of a community. Namely, that if the presence of collective efficacy and altruistic character are in high levels, and in contrast if moral and legal cynicism are in short supply, then the business should therefore succeed and have a "durable structure" as Sampson discovered (221).
Examples of these business models where collective efficacy and altruistic tendencies are in abundance, are Starbucks, Tom's, and Land Over Yonder. I'll highlight these companies starting with the largest of the three companies.
Starbucks, as we all know sells a lot of coffee. In 2011, a study performed by The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that Starbuck's gave away $30.5 million dollars in pre-tax profits (Forbes, "American Companies That Give Back the Most"). That same year they grossed $11.5 billion dollars yet they still gave away 2.1% of their pre-tax dollars to charitable donations (Starbucks Corporation, "Fiscal 2011 Annual Report"). Out of 300 top U.S. companies reviewed, Starbucks was in the Top 10. Is it any relation that their main goal at becoming a responsible company is this;
"At Starbucks, we have always believed in the importance of building a great,
enduring company that strikes a
balance
between profitability and a social conscience."
(Starbucks, Starbucks Company Profile Sept. 2013.)
Starbucks is a model child to build a business after if you do indeed want to give back to the greater good and make a billion or $10 billion dollars.
To highlight a second company that has achieved wild success by jumping on the collective efficacy and social altruism bus is a company you may have heard of called Tom's. Tom's is best known for giving away a pair of shoes for every shoe that is purchased. Their slogan is, "One for One." Since 2006, the company's founding date, Tom's has donated over 10 million pairs of shoes (Toms, Giving Report 2013). Spanning over 60 countries, Tom's is leaving their mark and without a doubt benefitting the greater good of the communities they donate shoes to.
The final company I would like to highlight is a local company based right here in St. George, Utah. A company that is also founded on principles of benefitting the "common good". Land Over Yonder is one such example. LOY, gives school uniforms to children in developing countries. With use of their sales profit, donations from LOY are able to ultimately facilitate education. In certain developing countries without school uniforms students aren't allowed to attend public schools. Their slogan is "Look Good, Do Good." In 2013 so far, they have been able to help 25 students receive school uniforms (Land Over Yonder, Mission). As a new company I hope their business model follow's the hard evidence of Sampson so they can benefit from a successful company that will in turn benefit the greater humanity of this earth.
All things considered, it is heartbreakingly obvious that by increasing the presence of cynicism and lowering the presence of both collective efficacy and community altruism that yes, indeed, your company will most likely fail (take Enron for example). The companies showcased above namely Starbucks, Tom's, and Land Over Yonder have taken the opposite path. They will continue to see sweeping success by continuing to give back and keep in mind three important factors. They are as follows, first, focus on the collective efficacy of the business, remember who keeps you alive (Hint, hint: others). Secondly, polish your altruism and keep that as guiding star. Lastly, do not associate with any type of cynical or selfish entity.
In the wise words of the billion-dollar company Starbuck's,
"an enduring company strikes a balance between profitability and a social conscience."
Sources:
Sampson, Robert. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. Print.
"American Companies That Give Back the Most". Forbes. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. n.d. Web. 30 September 2013.
"Starbucks Company Profile". Starbucks. September 2013. Web. 30 September 2013.
"Fiscal 2011 Annual Report". Starbucks. September 2011. Web. 30 September 2013.
"Giving Report". Toms. 2013. Web. 30 September 2013.
"Our Mission". Land Over Yonder. n.d. Web. 30 September 2013.
Great post! I liked how you brought related your post to real companies. While I do believe it is true that they practice altruism, I also believe that it is not TRUE altruism. The reason I say this is because true altruism requires somebody to give of their own resources without ANY expectation of anything in return. I think these businesses do great things, but I also think they are expecting more customers to come their way because of it. For example, TOMS advertises all over their website about how they give shoes away for every pair they sell. Like I said, this is commendable, but it doesn't qualify as true altruism. Just thought I'd throw that out there. But I did like your post and found it very insightful.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your response for this week's reading. I like how you found a way to relate the topics to business success. Devan also brings up a great point when he argues that these companies aren't really demonstrating true altruism. But I would argue with that. Sure, maybe these companies aren't demonstrating altruism in the purest sense of the word, but that's not really the point. Sampson is making the point that communities thrive when they possess high amounts of collective efficacy and altruism paired with low amounts of cynicism. Shaun draws a great parallel between this point and shows that the same applies in business. The combination of collective efficacy with altruism (regardless of how pure), and low amounts of cynicism can produce a very successful business model.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments guys. I do see what you are saying about the bridge between a true definition of altruism and the potential for a business to have ulterior motives in mind. I'd like to assume that Tom's started to venture as a way to give back and have a viable business plan to go along with it. It's kind of a 'catch 22' sort of thing, because without the giving of the shoes people probably wouldn't buy them, and without selling the shoes the company couldn't have given over 10 million pairs of shoes away.
ReplyDelete