“Loblaw Companies Limited is the largest food retailer in Canada that encompasses 1,000 corporate and franchise supermarkets that operates under 22 regional and market segment banners”.(Wikipedia)
Loblaw Companies have a binding hold on the retail sector of the Canadian economy; the influence Loblaw Companies holds, accelerates the number of customers by offering the lowest prices and by possessing the largest number of retail stores across Canada. By controlling the majority of consumer retail stores(No'Frills, President's Choice, No Name Brands, Joe Fresh, T&T, Shoppers Drugmart (etc); the Loblaw Companies dictate prices in most retail sectors, this is due to overwhelming majority of commodities they own. This domination of a critical sector …show more content…
But what about local business owners! Our profits are plummeting Paul! I have no argument against retailers maximizing profits, I think that its primary that profit enhancement is obligatory, but we must be balanced moral beings Paul, we deserve opportunity as-well, we should seek out more security to out local businesses. These large retailers should practice fiduciary duty to help us out as well (Freeman, 1994).
Paul: Calm down Ed, whats fiduciary duty?
Ed: Fiduciary duty basically consists of legally defined responsibilities not only to shareholders, but also to customers, investors and society as a whole. A large firm such the Loblaw Company has a wider and subtler range of responsibilities that are not easily codified into law (Bakan and Burke, 2005).
Paul: I don’t understand what your saying, companies don’t necessitate a legal responsibility to notice new strategies. Corporations are free to apply any strategy that coincides with their interests, more specially their shareholders. Companies are also liable to any penalty they committed, why would they put themselves at risk and disobey the law?(Bakan and Burke, …show more content…
All this corporate social responsibility talk and nothing involving the governments that allow it!?
Ed&Paul: What are you talking about Claire?
Claire: Cant you see that corporate social responsibility involves politicians as well? I mean Politicians are always left of the hook, they act behind the scenes, they only seem to take credit for philanthropic activity only when it benefits them. They don’t have to take any sides!(Reich, 2008) and back to your point Ed, I kind of agree with you, large corporations such as Loblaws, Walmart have embarced “corporate social responsibility” with open arms, it makes for good press and reassures the public.(Reich, 2008)
Paul: So are you saying that corporations can never be socially responsible?
Claire: In super capitalism, they cannot be socially responsible, at least not to any significant extent.(Reich, 2008), Social responsible corporations find ways to trick the consumer, they find ways to maximize profits and please CSR activists at the same time(green products). To call this socially responsible is a far shot(Reich, 2008).
Paul& Ed: Elaine, were guessing you have a theory
Loblaw Companies have a binding hold on the retail sector of the Canadian economy; the influence Loblaw Companies holds, accelerates the number of customers by offering the lowest prices and by possessing the largest number of retail stores across Canada. By controlling the majority of consumer retail stores(No'Frills, President's Choice, No Name Brands, Joe Fresh, T&T, Shoppers Drugmart (etc); the Loblaw Companies dictate prices in most retail sectors, this is due to overwhelming majority of commodities they own. This domination of a critical sector …show more content…
But what about local business owners! Our profits are plummeting Paul! I have no argument against retailers maximizing profits, I think that its primary that profit enhancement is obligatory, but we must be balanced moral beings Paul, we deserve opportunity as-well, we should seek out more security to out local businesses. These large retailers should practice fiduciary duty to help us out as well (Freeman, 1994).
Paul: Calm down Ed, whats fiduciary duty?
Ed: Fiduciary duty basically consists of legally defined responsibilities not only to shareholders, but also to customers, investors and society as a whole. A large firm such the Loblaw Company has a wider and subtler range of responsibilities that are not easily codified into law (Bakan and Burke, 2005).
Paul: I don’t understand what your saying, companies don’t necessitate a legal responsibility to notice new strategies. Corporations are free to apply any strategy that coincides with their interests, more specially their shareholders. Companies are also liable to any penalty they committed, why would they put themselves at risk and disobey the law?(Bakan and Burke, …show more content…
All this corporate social responsibility talk and nothing involving the governments that allow it!?
Ed&Paul: What are you talking about Claire?
Claire: Cant you see that corporate social responsibility involves politicians as well? I mean Politicians are always left of the hook, they act behind the scenes, they only seem to take credit for philanthropic activity only when it benefits them. They don’t have to take any sides!(Reich, 2008) and back to your point Ed, I kind of agree with you, large corporations such as Loblaws, Walmart have embarced “corporate social responsibility” with open arms, it makes for good press and reassures the public.(Reich, 2008)
Paul: So are you saying that corporations can never be socially responsible?
Claire: In super capitalism, they cannot be socially responsible, at least not to any significant extent.(Reich, 2008), Social responsible corporations find ways to trick the consumer, they find ways to maximize profits and please CSR activists at the same time(green products). To call this socially responsible is a far shot(Reich, 2008).
Paul& Ed: Elaine, were guessing you have a theory