Comparison Of Corporate Social Responsibility And Ethics Of Air China And Qantas

Differences between the two companies in terms of social issues

Discuss about the Business Planet and Society Environment.

The current report is based on the assessment of business values governing a business environment. Universally business ethical values are defined as the set of guiding principles, which encourage individuals in an organisation to undertake decision based on the organisations, stated belief and attitude towards a business practice within its industry (Schrempf et al., 2015).

The current report is based on the evaluation of business ethics and social responsibility of Air China and Qantas both operating under the aviation industry but from different country. Air china limited is considered as the chief carrier of the people’s republic of china having its head quarter in “Shunyi District, Beijing”. Air china established and commenced its business operations during the year 1988 on 1^st July. The company carries flight operations largely from the Beijing capital international airport.

On the other hand, Qantas, which is considered as the flag carrier airline, company of Australia having the largest airline by fleet size with worldwide flights and worldwide destinations (Investor.qantas. 2017). Qantas is considered as the world’s third oldest airline company in the world following KLM and Avianca. Qantas was founded in Winton, Queensland in the year 1920 as Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial services limited.

Community strategy and partnerships Qantas community strategy forms the spirit of Australia. Qantas is committed to the journey of reconciliation, promoting and displaying the best of Australia. Qantas engages its workforces in order to re-enforce their brand values through annual community investment (Cheng et al., 2014). Qantas forms partnerships with organisations, which promotes positive changes to enrich their community. Reducing the use of resources is the primary focus of Qantas towards future planet. Qantas also aims to reduce its dependence on water by 20% by the end of 2020. Other social issues such as it are specifically aimed to reduce the instance of waste to landfill by 30% with 35% reduction in electricity by 2030. Qantas is also focused towards achieving carbon neutral growth by the end of 2030 and aims to cut down its emission by 50% by the end of 2050 in comparison to their 2005 level of emission.

Social responsibility and ethical operations forms the fundamental part of Qantas business activities. Qantas understands its brands valuation and aims to protect it through robust social policies and processes. Qantas continues to prioritise its social responsibility by addressing unethical business practices such as corruption (Rupp et al., 2013). It continues to priorities the development of its business through rigorous anti-corruption framework. Qantas establishes a cross functional responsibilities by steering the executive group towards developing anti-corruption strategy and policy.

Quality of social accounting approach

Air china on the other hand, has consistently followed a high standard business ethics. At the same time it Air china endeavours to uphold its social image by contributing its resources towards building a fair and harmonious social atmosphere (Airchina.com. 2017). Air china have continued to progress with their campaign of combating corruption and promoting integrity by implementing work plan for building integrity culture and develops an educational network based on integrity culture.

Relevant issues such as customers services, corporate culture, operational safety, lower carbon emission, energy efficiency and reduction in emission. Air china further works towards addressing community development through public welfare activities and investors communications. With sustainable development in the background, Air china encourages its participation of stakeholders under the principles of practicality along with completeness to identify the issues. This consists of the identification of relevant issues, confirmation of the practical issues, approval of reporting content and reviewing procedures. This allows Air China to monitor responsibility and strengthen the accountability mechanism upon anti-corruption (Korschun et al., 2014). This allows air china to push forward the prevention and control function of their social integrity by strengthening the construction of their integrity monitoring mechanism.

In case of Qantas the various types of the corporate social responsibilities has been seen in terms of the support for corporate social responsibility, which includes working with an alliance towards a membership with Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX). It has been further seen that the various types of the audit report, which are being shared on this platform, are directly related to the areas of concern for maintenance of labour standards, health, safety, and maintenance of integrity in the business. 

The main social responsibility has been seen with extensive assessment of the onsite audits, which are conducted in the workplace. Since 2009, the company has been committed in maintaining highest form of efficiency of fuel usage and improving the same to 5%. This has been observed to a considerable sector for the area related to the overall development on terms of the corporate social responsibility. It has been further stated that the various types of the factors related to the variables affecting the fuel efficiency has been seen to be accelerated in terms of increasing the existing fuel efficiency and reducing the carbon emissions in compared to other airlines (Investor.qantas.com. 2017).

The corporate social responsibility of Air China has been seen in form of the release of the state owned supervision of the assets and the administration commission of the state council. The notice related to the acceptability of the CSR has been seen in form of the guidelines stated by Shanghai Stock Exchange. The various types of the CSR strategy development has been further seen with the usage of the positive engagement with the stakeholders in areas related to operation, safety, service, talent and environment (Airchina.com.cn. 2017). On 23^rd April 2014, the company introduced environmental protection related to public interest, which was done under the theme of walking for a better health and for the protection of the environment.

The program consisted of 100 employees and more than 160 volunteers took part in the same. In another instance, Air China was known to introduce the intelligent policy for recycling of plastic bottles. In this initiative, it has been observed that the employees can place the empty bottle after receiving of RMB0.5-1.5 credit in the mobile apps of the respective users. It is also regarded as the first central state-owned company to respond to the Beijing Municipal Governments call (Airchina.com.cn. 2017).

The notion that that the corporations should be held responsible for their social presentation has progressively turned acceptable over the last five years. According to Jacobson et al., (2014), a considerable amount of debate has been raised regarding the process adopted by the companies to address the social responsibility and what constitutes their finest practice in social accounting. Vital principles concerning the fundamental philosophies of best practice is that companies, which are socially responsible, must engage themselves with their stakeholders and generate the social report, which is an account of their social performance. According to the “Zadek et al. 1997” theory, social accounting undertaken by Qantas for management control purpose is designed to support and facilitate the achievement of the company’s own objectives. Such responsibilities include assessment of risk, management of stakeholders, preconisation of social responsibility, maintenance of public relations and efficiencies.

Air china on the other hand, has undertaken the responsibility of accountability, democratic and sustainability purpose, which is designed to support and facilitate society in pursuit of its objectives. Such reporting covers the rights of the stakeholders, balancing power with responsibility empowerment of stakeholders by promoting transparency and openness demonstrating the social and environmental cost of economic success. Whilst there shall be often be overlap between these two companies as neither of the company is simply homogeneous since they possess differences in fundamental approach.

The management control perspective of Qantas put the organisation first and typically it focuses on society first hardly makes any assumption regarding the organisation. Air china stakeholder’s engagement is essential towards sustainable development. According to the Zadek theory, air china has channelized its resources to promote dialog with the stakeholders. The overall social responsibility of air china lays down the impact of decisions in the economy in terms of both environmentally and socially (Fooks et al., 2013). Air china evaluates and monitor the progress of the company’s response towards stakeholders demands and its efforts to create comprehensive values against the set of pre-established performance indicators. This helps in identifying the problems and challenges within the prescribed time to continuously improve the accountability management system of Air china.

Social responsibility has several benefits for the organisations regardless of the industry in which it operates. These benefits consist of enhancing the brand image, promoting customer loyalty and increased ability to retain employees. The idea of social responsibility is contently evolving (Zheng et al., 2014). Amongst the most highly recognised changes is increased involvement of stakeholder, creation of business ethics and code of conduct to promote financial transparency. Social responsibility of Qantas plays an important and progressive role domestically in Australia across the overseas global network. Qantas continues to challenge the notion by promoting customer loyalty and satisfaction forming a vital part of their business.

Qantas promotes environmental leadership by working together with their customers and communities by becoming the first airline company in the world to introduce a voluntary carbon offsetting programme. Furthermore, Qantas does not generate any revenue from such programmes and uses the funds obtained to purchase verified carbon offsets with yearly contribution of more than 1.2 million. Qantas promotes social responsibility through risk control based on the supplier, industry and location (Doh et al., 2013). It also sets up a network concerning ethics and compliance throughout the wide range of business sectors in order to share knowledge and initiatives. Following the consultation with their key stakeholders, it periodically revises the code of conduct and ethics serving in the form of compliance guide for the managers.

Air china manages social responsibility by developing opportunity and maintaining communications through positive engagement with its stakeholders. Air china not only faces social responsibility directly but also utilises the social demand in order to explore bigger market to realise continuous sustainable growth. Air china pays special attentions to co-operate with their industry peers in order to attain a rational allocation by realising the general values for the entire industry (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). On the other hand, suppliers forms the key part of air china values chain by strengthening the management of suppliers responsibility.

The company also anticipates its suppliers to follow the practices of common principles. This can help in establishing closer co-operations with the company, which may ultimately assist them in raising developmental abilities. In addition to this, air china also implements the green purchases towards environmental protection forming an essential conditions in air china’s supplier choice. The company also ensures to strengthen its safety management in order to improve the quality of the company’s operational safety (Fooks et al., 2013). Air china promotes the application of its safety management, which focuses on the introduction of new safety measures along with the control of critical risk through management of safety emergency.

Conclusion:

Upon conclusion, it is found that Air China fulfils the responsibility to its customers and endeavours to improve the quality of the service throughout the entire process. The report also provides that the company focus on seamless service by laying down clear guidelines to improve the customer experience. Air china significantly fulfilled its responsibility towards sustainability by reducing its dependence on fuel and striving towards energy conservation. The company has earnestly fulfilled its social responsibility by being thoughtful to its social and communal development. It was also found that air china is focuses on energy conservation by implementing improved fuel efficiency and lower noise level. On the other hand, Qantas reported to prioritise its social responsibility by dealing with unprincipled business practices such as corruption.

The study further provides that it continue to priorities the expansion of its trade by adopting rigorous anti-corruption framework. Qantas launched a cross functional responsibilities by navigating the executive group towards developing anti-corruption strategy and policy. To conclude with social responsibility for both the company is directed towards building harmonious and spirited team in order to stimulate their pride in their profession. This in turn helps in promoting prosperous growth for both the companies.

Reference list:  

Airchina.com.cn. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.airchina.com.cn/en/images/en/investor_relations/csr/2015/08/27/B2B27B4F4034CA5FF7C6899C32FC1240.pdf [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Airchina.com.cn. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.airchina.com.cn/en/images/en/investor_relations/csr/2013/11/27/012EEFF4ACA84E26C830A3B923132C00.pdf [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Arnold, D. G., Goodpaster, K. E., & Weaver, G. R. (2015). Past Trends and Future Directions in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Scholarship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(04), v-xv.

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23.

Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs the influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197-232.

Doh, J., Husted, B., & Yang, X. (2013). Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Developing Country Multinationals. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(04), 638-639.

Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 283-299.

Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence. pearson.

Grosser, K., Moon, J., Freeman, R. E., & Nelson, J. (2014). Special Issue on: Gender, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(02), 303-306.

Investor.qantas.com. (2017). [online] Available at: https://investor.qantas.com/FormBuilder/_Resource/_module/doLLG5ufYkCyEPjF1tpgyw/file/annual-reports/qantas_annual_review_2015.pdf [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Jacobson, K. J., Hood, J. N., & Van Buren, H. J. (2014). Beyond (But Including) the CEO: Diffusing Corporate Social Responsibility throughout the Organization through Social Networks. Business and Society Review, 119(3), 337-358.

Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Swain, S. D. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 20-37.

Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2014). The relationship between marketing ethics and corporate social responsibility: Serving stakeholders and the common good. Handbook of research on marketing and corporate social responsibility.

Murphy, P. E., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a special topic section. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1807-1813.

Rupp, D. E., Wright, P. M., Aryee, S., & Luo, Y. (2015). Organizational justice, behavioral ethics, and corporate social responsibility: Finally the three shall merge. Management and Organization Review, 11(01), 15-24.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. (2015). Historic corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, amr-2014.

Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2014). Moral degradation, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility in a transitional economy. Journal of business ethics, 120(3), 405-421.