Companies need to be vocal about the social issues in Australia

This article discusses the importance of companies being vocal about social issues in Australia. It highlights the need for corporate social responsibility and the role of leaders in addressing these issues. It also explores the concerns and challenges faced by companies in speaking out on controversial topics. The article emphasizes the benefits of being vocal and the impact it can have on both the company and society.

MANAGEMENT

1
Companies need to be vocal about the social issues in Australia
Social issues are extending their arms in the Australian society and the role of companies in
dealing with the issues has increased. Australia is a developed nation where many big firms
with high amount of resources exist. Their only aim should not be to earn high amount of
profits, they also need to work towards the development of the society and look forward to be
a firm that does a good business (Huang, 2010). They are Many organisations in Australia
have invested extensively in corporate social responsibility related activities but at the same
time, it is seen that their activities are not on the ground levels. Since social issues are
increasing day by day hence companies will also have to think about what they can do for
improving their position in the areas like CSR. Corporate needs to be more vocal about the
issues that are exist in the society which generally is avoided by them. This will not only help
them in creating a good image in the market but will also help in enhancing the standards of
living and hence eradicating the problems that might affect their business.
Ensuring sustainability for both company and the society in which they deal becomes very
much crucial for the corporate firms. In this regards, the role of leaders at the top becomes
very much crucial. This is because they set the mission and vision for the company. At the
same time, they ensure that people working under them have common vision to deal with the
challenges they might face (Ihlen, Bartlett & May, 2011). They need to ensure that they
provide appropriate resources to company so that their business model can be successful and
address the challenges faced by the company. Leaders need to make plan in the long term so
as to improve their working model based on which they can ensure higher profits and also
improve their chances of sustainability. There are some major issues on which every big
corporate talk about and work towards but there are social issues for which corporates are not
vocal about. They are generally considered as offensive in the society. As speaking on these
issues will bring the corporates in limelight or it might be possible that the personnel
involved can develop a controversy (Cockburn, 2017). This is not good in the modern day
business which is totally focused towards making a better image in the society. Due to this, it
is seen that they are not giving such issues a platform in their corporate culture or are not
helping in improving the situations regarding the issue faced.
There are few CEOs like Alan Joyce who are speaking but most part of the corporate in
Australia is silent about the issues in the society such as same-sex marriage. They are highly
concerned about the fact that it will bring more politicisation of corporate. They believe that

2
it will bring negativity and politics in the firm. If the media catches any statement then they
might unnecessarily abrupt the functioning of the organisational process. This makes the
corporate houses more concerned about their position in the market and the loss that might be
generated due to politicisation of their firms (Arli & Lasmono, 2010). In the today’s
competitive environment, no firms want this. Unless the commitment will come from the side
of the top leadership, it is difficult to reach to the bottom of the organisational levels. Raising
voice against some of the problems can be dangerous for the people
In different parts of the world, governments are legalising the same sex marriage but still it is
understood to be a controversial thing to deal with especially when it comes to corporate.
Even when they believe in these things they are not coming out to speak for it. Australian
corporate houses consist of people from different parts of the world and hence it becomes
more difficult for them to comment on any of such issues in the market. The negative side of
the story of the CSR activities done by the companies is that most of them speak on the social
issues so as to make better image for them (Visser, Matten, Pohl & Tolhurst, 2010). They will
talk about unemployment or the issues related to social justice but issues such as Sex
marriage is often ignored by the corporate. It is essential that a corporate house does not only
show themselves as good rather they must become good.
Corporates have a feeling that it will invoke politicisation of the company. If it will hurt the
sentiments of the people than there might be boycott of their products or might face huge
uproar from any particular section in the society. But the corporate houses will have to
understand that since the intensity of the crisis in the society has increased to higher levels
hence politicisation is genuine (Robles, 2017). Corporates these days have a major role in the
development of society and making improvements against the social issues faced by the
company. The revolution of technology in the communication has improved the two way
communication between the society and the company. In such a situation corporates
responsibility and their accountability against the social issues becomes bigger. Alan Joyce’s
is right because some of the organisations have become a major power centre in the country
and they play a major role in the development of society. They cannot keep themselves away
from the social issues that exist in the society (Galbreath, 2010). Politicisation is genuine it is
just that how company’s handle the problems that might they face while they talk about these
issues.

3
In different words it can be understood that politicisation is generally concerned with the
issues in the society that are of high public visibility and often attracts controversies at
different platforms. This is the major reason why some of the sceptics are concerned about
the politicisation of corporate (Dey & Sircar, 2012). They feel that due to this, some of the
shareholders that are attached with the firm can face loss that cannot be forfeited. Sometimes
the corporates also feel that they have stakeholders from different parts of the world and in
some of the culture, this support to these issues might not be taken positively. If this happens
than it is highly probable that company might face challenges in managing the business
operations at international levels. No company want such things to happen and hence they
avoid politicisation of corporate. In the volatile nature of the current business environment,
there are many temporary investors linked with the company and any politicisation might
take them away from them.
Alan Joyce remark is also essential in the modern day business because there is failure in the
business leadership as they have been slow to responding towards the changes that are taking
place in the society especially the ones that invoke politicisation of corporate. If the leaders of
the companies will be vocal about it, the acceptance of the issue in the society will be easier.
This will ensure that issues will be dealt with moral obligations which will provide strength
to the fight against the problem (Laihonen, 2018). This is because it will be highlight in the
news and hence more people will come out to support the activities. It can easily be
implemented in the firm’s policy manual. Alan Joyce thinks that by becoming more vocal,
companies can easily promote societal change and accept the phase of transition that is going
on in the society. This will help in promoting good for the people.
The business objectives should not concise itself to just aiming for higher growth rate of the
company but there is requirement of more than traditional philanthropic areas of aid. If the
company seems to ignore the new problems existing in the society, it is possible that
company might lose their ground in the society (Lemieux, 2018). More than working with
rhetoric, corporate must be intended to serve the society inevitably where they understand
their significance in making the world that is more acceptable for everyone.
The major benefit of being vocal is that the object of service to the society which such leaders
are applying to business will automatically become the objective which the public will first
accept as an suitable role for business, subsequently come to expect and finally make a
demand (Galbreath, 2010). Companies will also perform according to the new business

4
ethics. It is also to be understood that if business ignored the public acceptance-expectation-
demand process and refuse to include it in the solution of the social challenges, the pressures
for politicisation would vanish.
Big organisations do not involve it in such issues as they feel that there is essential deficiency
of accountability of corporate management resulting because of widespread distribution of
stock ownership and effective separation of ownership from control. Since today the
corporate structure has changed and no one has enough power to control the corporate
responsibilities and CEOs or any spokesperson are under pressure to not speak anything that
is out of the box (Pérez, 2013). There is lack of accountability i.e. which personnel will be
accountable for social responsibilities are weakly attributed.
The politicisation of the company and their thoughts will bring new strength in the society
and hence both company and society will understand each other’s need. Since the needs keep
on changing at regular intervals hence it is crucial that a firm understands the problems that
might arise in speaking and standing up for any issue. They must have a mitigation plan that
could help the company in dealing with the challenges they might face due to working on
these issues (Rahim, 2013). A plan based approach will help the firm in improving their CSR
activities and will also help a firm in fighting as one unit. If the leaders don’t get a support
from the employees at the lower levels, then there might be a chance that a company will not
be able to defend itself in the situation which arises due to support of any issue.
The negative impact of being vocal also arise because all the firms do not support such issues
there are some that speaks about these and then come into the limelight. No firm wants to
eliminate it from the main stream corporate world. It is also the fact that politicisation of
corporates can only be successful when the firms also receive help from the side of the people
(Rahim, 2012). If any leader or spokesperson of that company speaks about their issues then
there might be the chance that people boycott them. This demotivates others to be vocal and
work towards eradicating that particular problem.
Politicisation of corporate will allow a firm to be one step ahead of their competitors in order
to deal with certain evils that are present in the society. It might be possible that people starts
admiring the company as one of those places that are suitable for working. It is not necessary
that due to politicisation of the corporate there will always be a negative campaign against the
company. There are many bosses that feels that they are left with little choice other than
supporting what their lower level staffs are vocal about. Reports suggest that young

5
employees think that when their leaders will take any kind of position in public about the
societal issues, they will be more loyal to their firm. Sticking just to the annual reports or
press release won’t give anything to the firm (Tinker & Sy, 2017). Taking political position
in the current time will not affect the position of the company in the market. As the role of the
companies in the society is increasing hence such politicisation will not do harm to the
company. This is also an age of social media hence a bigger platform will be provided to the
people so that they can speak their hearts out. Since it is seen that today’s social issues are
highly discussed on the platforms such as social media hence the position of the company
will be easily spread.
In today’s time, most of the companies are involved in the politics to the extent that they do
corporate funding but the role of the corporates should be more diverse. In the today’s
competitive business environment, firms should remember one thing that no stakeholder is
going to leave the company just because they support ant particular issue in the market as
long as their interests are getting fulfilled. No customers will leave the company because its
spokesperson has supported any new issues in the society as long as the product or service
quality remains on the higher side. Higher customer satisfaction is the only thing that matters
to the customers these days. The positive side of the story is that it is possible that firm might
add some more loyal customers to their base if the firm is supporting a particular issue
(Peters, 2013). This is because they get psychologically motivated towards the firm. The
example of it can be understood by the fact that no consumer wants to pay high just because
the company supports any social issue hence the vice-versa is true. This explains that
corporates can be easily vocal about any particular issue if they feel themselves to be
connected with this issue. The vague thought and improper idealism is not good when a
company really wants to change the social standards in the society.
Just because there lower level staffs do not like any issue does not mean that firm won’t hire
people that are practicing things like same sex marriage. The selection must be totally on the
basis of the talents they have and nothing else. If a firm fails to do this then they might face
challenges in managing the talent that is actually required within the firm. A firm in today’s
time must consist of people with different set of preferences, this is necessary for bringing
diversity at the workplace (Pérez, 2013). Companies need to be really social rather than just
portraying that they are social. Politicisation of corporate will also promote the smaller firms
to also invest on the new social situations. More the company will be vocal, more is the
chance that other firms will follow them and hence they can easily become leaders in that

6
particular area which is good in the modern day business and will give long term benefits to
the company.
In conclusion it can be said that corporate needs to support the issues that was previously
considered to something that is not accepted by the society. They need to continuously invest
in these areas so as to bring sustainability in the society. Companies need to focus on diverse
set of social issues rather than focusing on some of the basic issues only. Initiatives will help
in creating a better society where there will be no discrimination just because their thinking is
different or they do not belong to major section in the society (Rahim, 2013). Multinational
companies should be more vocal about these issues as they have larger resource base and at
the same time, they are connected to larger numbers of stakeholders. The risk of politicisation
of the corporate will lesser in the case of MNCs.

7
References
Arli, D. I., & Lasmono, H. K. (2010). Consumers' perception of corporate social
responsibility in a developing country. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34(1), 46-51.
Cockburn, P. 2017. Same-sex marriage: Qantas CEO Alan Joyce urges 'good businesses' to
support 'yes' vote. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-25/alan-
joyce-calls-for-businesses-to-support-same-sex-marriage/8842332
Dey, M., & Sircar, S. (2012). Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives with
Business Strategy: A Study of Some Indian Companies. IUP Journal of Corporate
Governance, 11(1).
Galbreath, J. (2010). Drivers of corporate social responsibility: The role of formal strategic
planning and firm culture. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 511-525.
Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from
Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), 411-431.
Huang, C. J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate
performance. Journal of management & organization, 16(5), 641-655.
Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and
corporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons.
Laihonen, M. (2018, July). False legitimation through political corporate social
responsibility. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 18252).
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Lemieux, P. 2018. Business Is Getting Too Politicized. Retrieved from:
https://fee.org/articles/business-is-getting-too-politicized/
Pérez, F. S. (2013). Explaining the Politicisation Deficit. In Political Communication in
Europe (pp. 159-196). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Peters, G. 2013. Politicisation: What Is It and Why Should We Care?. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137316813_2

8
Rahim, M. M. (2012). Raising corporate social responsibility-The legitimacy
approach. Macquarie J. Bus. L., 9, 102.
Rahim, M. M. (2013). Legal regulation of corporate social responsibility. CSR,
SustainaEility, Ethics & Governance. DOI, 10, 978-3.
Robles, P. 2017. The growing politicization of brands in a polarized world. Retrieved from:
https://econsultancy.com/the-growing-politicization-of-brands-in-a-polarized-world/
Tinker, A., & Sy, A. (2017). Politicisation of the professions. International Journal of
Economics and Accounting, 8(1), 61-66.
Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M., & Tolhurst, N. (2010). The A to Z of corporate social
responsibility. John Wiley & Sons.