«Maintaining the Reputation of SiSCO Oil Company» - Great Essay Sample

Introduction

It is the duty of SiSCO Oil Company to maintain a corporate reputation that satisfies clients, society at large, employees, and sustains social well-being of all stakeholders. Therefore, this Corporate Social Responsibility strategy proposal is aimed at improving SiSCO Oil and sustaining the company’s reputation in the public domain. Reputation in this case is taken as the image that the organization portrays to the public, its stakeholders, and employees through its corporate activities. The nature of the oil industry requires the organization to act in accordance with the standards set by the law, as well as to enhance efficiency of its activities. SiSCO Oil is a company dedicated to promoting affordable and sustainable oil products to customers around the Gulf of Mexico and southern part of the USA. The elements that would enhance SiSCO Oil’s reputation include pollution control, pollution prevention, sustaining environmental heritage, social sustainability, and business sustainability. It is worth pointing out that the best results could only be achieved if all of the above elements are combined (Arendt & Brettel, 2010).

Pollution Control

As a company that deals with oil products, SiSCO is associated with a number of pollution accusations from competitors, critics, environmentalists, and governmental agencies. However, these claims are not reflective of the actual situation because SiSCO has signed various treaties to conserve the environment. It is not the duty of this company to deal with critics, but it is appropriate to address issues in accordance with standard CSR expectations in order to maintain an acceptable reputation. Pollution control is one of the many issues that must be addressed in order to get the needed support from the public. Through this, organization’s social corporate duties would be addressed ethically, with respect to the needs of the public. Transportation of oil by tankers and trucks has been cited as a way of polluting the environment (Lankoski, 2009). Given the recent BP oil spill, it is hard to convince the public that the organizational activities are safe and do not threaten any life form or anyone’s safety. It is through this concern that the oil transportation means will be revised to assess the level of vulnerability to various environmental and human risk factors that may play an active role in polluting the environment.

Pollution prevention and pollution control are the two different factors that should not be taken as one. Pollution prevention is the act or the implementation of measures that prevent the activities of an organization from resulting in pollution. Pollution prevention is the responsibility of various groups; however, the organization is held more accountable for the pollution than any other entity. In this case, it would be worthwhile to consider a scenario that puts the customer in control of whatever product he/she purchases. This means that the organization is accountable for the products it is selling, whether it has them in store or in possession of a random client. In this case, products like brake oil and others that are packaged in small quantities should be stored in safe recyclable containers, with environmental sustainable warnings. Through this move, the organization will not only be able to recuperate from the diminishing critics’ reputation, but will also be able to produce evidence that it is in support of pollution prevention measures. With regards to pollution control, pollution prevention will enhance the reputation of the organization in the eyes of the shareholders by limiting the cost of sustaining environmentally friendly activities (Karaibrahimoglu, 2010).

The environment has different meanings to different people in terms of value and sustainability. To the government, the sustainability of ecosystems is valued because it supports various life forms and vegetation covers. To farmers, the environment means survival, while sustainability is a strategy to protect the habitats of livestock and various staple-food plants. Environmental sustainability is different from pollution control or pollution prevention in that it aims to maintain a healthy environment in terms of fresh air, vegetation cover, and prevention of erosion. In this case, the duty of SiSCO is to ensure that the above values are upheld and that no blame can be associated with the activities of the company. In this case, the public will be protected from diminishing environmental value if action is taken. One of the options that SiSCO aims to achieve is to install safety measures in its oil pipelines. This will prevent the pipelines from bursting and affecting forms of life along its course. In addition, offshore mining will require to be assessed by a government review board in order to point out areas requiring improvement. Standardization can be done within the company; however, the responsibility for protecting environment lies solely with SiSCO’s and other agencies (Aupperle, Carroll & Hatfield, 1985).

Life support systems are environments that have a certain pattern of the interrelationship between inhabitants and their means of survival. In this case, such patterns affect one entity first and then the whole package goes to crisis, if nothing is done. Being a responsible company with the potential to destroy these patterns, SiSCO should separate value of respect from value of money. This means that SiSCO Oil should draw a clear line between ensuring respect for life and earning revenue. Corporations depend on sales and are interested in surviving in a highly competitive environment. However, the life of creatures that crawl in the soil has an effect on the cycle of life in general, and, therefore, demands respect and sustainability. In this case, taking responsibility for the actions that SiSCO Oil is involved in, it results in the conservation of sustainable human conditions. The executive management formulates strategies, while the board of governors assesses them and either returns them for revision or authorizes their implementation. For this reason, stakeholders that may be affected by these strategic decisions may not have control over the issues. In this case, employees that work for SiSCO are a part of the complex environmental units that must be protected. Shareholders and other stakeholders are a part of the life system, and, therefore, should be protected by the organization. Implementing ethics of operations will guide the organization into doing the right thing regardless of whether its rivals do so or not.

Social sustainability can be derived from environmental sustainability, because the two are connected in their form and relationship to human life. The social life of a normal human being involves going to either work or school, breathing fresh air, consuming healthy foods, and relating well with the environment. In this case, SiSCO Oil is related to the environment in that the products sold by this organization are derived from the environment. On a secondary level, SiSCO is related to the social aspect of humans through its association with the environment. However delicate the issue of environmental conservation may be to the operations of an organization like this, the social responsibility of the organization extends far beyond conservation of ecosystems and respect for human life. The aspect of social responsibility that will matter most to the staff we have within the organization and the public outside the organization is the promotion of environmental sustainability, even if that involves cutting down on some business operations for the good of the environment. As the ethical considerations of an organization’s activities are prioritized, shareholder value of an organization should be maintained through various ways. In our case, the reputation of the organization does not depend on how much credit environmentalists give to the organization, but the level of satisfaction the organization provides to its shareholders. Therefore, corporate social responsibility in our case is inclusive of all aspects of operation that are responsible for sustaining business operations and social aspects that affect human life (Fernandez & Souto, 2009).

Social equity is the balance created between people’s activities and their relationships with the environment. Social equity is the responsibility of the organization to balance the appeal of the workplace with the needs of people inside and outside the organization. In accordance with the workplace ethics of SISCO Oil, the responsibility of the organization is to make the lives of employees comfortable by creating an environment that treats and respects each one of them. This initiative can be undertaken by the organization’s management chain of command through the provision of tolerable workplace environment. This will ensure that employees have respect for the workplace, while the same respect is extended to them. Respect for the management can exist in various levels of management; the executive management shows respect for the other types of managements by observing work ethics and ensuring fair treatment. The usefulness of workplace ethics and fair treatment of employees is the ability to boost performance of various individual employees. When employees believe that the organization cares for them in terms of respect and social equity, they are motivated to work much more productively. In the oil industry, this results in responsible treatment behavior being extended to customers by employees. The reputation of the organization is boosted at two levels: management reputation to employees and organizational reputation to customers and shareholders (Kotler & Lee, 2005).

The purpose of for-profit organizations and business models is to acquire a competitive advantage in order to create surplus in production. As far as corporate social responsibility is concerned, the sustainability of a business is among the highly prioritized issues that define the purpose of the business and its chances of survival in the corporate setting. In this case, the number of aspects considered includes its business model and the effects it has on shareholders and employees, the cost of operation and implementation of government regulatory requirements, as well as the effect the organization has on smaller businesses operating within the same market. To the shareholders, the investments made by these groups should pay off in order to sustain shareholders’ confidence. To the employees, the organization should provide an atmosphere that allows and accommodates personal professional growth. To the government, the operations of an organization should adhere to the law. The implementation of CSR should reflect the organization’s ability to operate within reasonable cost-effective limits. The organization should be able to consider the position of small businesses that are likely to be affected by unethical business activities and decisions of large organizations, as well as the role they play in the market. The above responsibilities are reflective of the purpose of CSR in SiSCO Oil in terms of sustaining the organization’s business strength, as well as a success recipe and sustenance of significant organizational reputation (Lankoski, 2009; Arendt & Brettel, 2010).