The BC (Liz, Kate R, me) met and had this idea for a prompt.
Does having beanbags and cafeterias and ping-pong tables for employees lead to better stakeholder outcomes? To more ethical products or processes? Like Fran Hawthorne asked about Apple, Inc in Ethical Chic, does a “cool” company translate into real ethical outcomes?
Even your old friend institutional logics plays a part here. Because now many firms face the tensions and conflicts between a logic of shareholder value maximization and a logic of social responsibility (or community-mindedness or ethics… term is less important than the idea). How do companies negotiate the tensions between these competing logics? Do they walk the talk? Or do they simply say the right things but not actually change practices?
How to proceed. Look for an employer who is noted as being a good or ethical employer (maybe one you have dreamed of hitching yourself too). Then, see what you can learn about the firm’s actual record for stakeholder relations, for ethical (or unethical actions), for living its stated values.
Does a good employer lead to good outcomes?
Lists of employers you might use. (Feel free to comment on the methodology of list too).
Once you pick one, describe why it seems it would be a good employer. Then put on your sleuthing hat and learn what is known about its actual record in any relevant area of stakeholder relations or ethical conduct in its products or processes.
Commenting this week:
As the BC will report in their report, commenting is meant to be a conversation.
So, you should comment on FOUR posts.
Comment as often as you like. Feel free to break longer comments into more self-contained points.
For your own post, REPLY to comments, at least the first-tier ones (those most left on page, that are not replies to replies).
The top three discussants or respondents on their own post will be called COMMENTER of the WEEK and earn a pass to do less daily prep questions one week (of her choosing).