artifacts 5 and 6

ARTIFACT SUMMARY 5 & 6 1

Capstone Assignment: Artifact Summary 5 & 6

Heather Anderson

Saint Mary's University of Minnesota

Schools of Graduate & Professional Programs

OL 655 – Capstone Symposium

April 12, 2014


Artifact Summary 5: Impact analysis

I have chosen the impact analysis paper as my artifact from OL 634 – Economic and

Political Contexts. By using the themes of political, social and economic trends I was able to

explore the challenge of global corporate sustainability and the impact of education for global

organizations. The analysis reveals that corporations develop ethical behaviors based on

acceptable socially constructed expectations. Corporate involvement in environmental

sustainability can also set the agenda for environmental policy in many cultures.

This course provided an opportunity to explore real world examples of corporate social

responsibility and better understand the role of organizations in environmental sustainability.

Due to this course work, it has become obvious to me that I would like to belong to an

organization with a strong culture of corporate social responsibility. I now have tools to support

the mission and values of organizations that maintain strong and supportive ties to the

communities they serve.

This artifact demonstrates an understanding of the course outcomes pertaining to analyze

the influence of organizational beliefs and policies on global economies (St. Mary’s University,

2013). This artifact also demonstrates Organizational Leadership program outcome number 5,

showing my ability to evaluate the ethical and legal implications of one’s actions. Specifically,

the analysis considers how to recognize how foundational ideologies impact analysis and

judgment (St. Mary’s University, n.d.).


References

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (n.d.). 2013-2015 Catalog & handbook: Schools of

graduate and professional programs. Retrieved from http://catalog.smumn.edu/mime

/media/view/12/824/2013-15-SGPP.pdf

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2013). M.A. in organizational leadership. Retrieved

from http://www.smumn.edu/graduate-home/areas-of-study/graduate-school-of-business-

technology/ma-in-organizational-leadership


Global Trends Part II: Impact Analysis

Heather Anderson



OL 634 – Economic and Political Contexts

Hassen Hussein & Rick Bernardo

June 1, 2013


Introduction

Considering the role of a leader, a corporation, or a society in the emerging global

community is a complex and confusing task. The interwoven elements that effect how we all

understand each other and find a way to work together are difficult to isolate. In order to navigate

successfully into the future there must be an attempt to understand what trends most affect all of

us. If we are to survive this level of unprecedented growth on the global scale, then we must

protect our resources and develop our future leaders. Both our environment and our culture must

adapt to connect properly on a global scale. I will analyze information provided by Shinkle and

Spencer (2012) regarding global environmental concerns, then further explore the trend as

discussed by Peloza, Loock, Cerruti, and Muyot (2012). I will also share information gathered by

Altbach (2009) and Yavas and Dilber (1991) about the role of education in the global context.

Global Corporate Sustainability

Shinkle and Spencer (2012) discuss the ambiguous nature of the concept of global

environmental sustainability in the context of automotive corporations. Corporations develop

acceptable behaviors relating to environmental responsibility based on socially constructed

expectations. There is a societal discussion and a reaction to the actions of political and corporate

organizations that set the tone for the expectations of these groups. The legitimacy of the

multinational business can be questioned if these social norms are not adhered to.

Companies can no longer afford to deny climate change is a valid concern. When there

are no governmental controls, then there is an opportunity for corporations to play a significant

role in constructing the meaning of global corporate citizenship (Schinkle and Spencer, 2012).

The evolutionary nature of environmental issues allows for a great deal of corporate

involvement. Automotive companies realize that environmental regulation will eventually effect


global production, so they are joining in the discussion now in an attempt to influence the

dialogue. Shinkle and Spencer (2012) explain that legitimacy is earned when the values

associated with an organization are in congruence with the behavior of the larger social system to

which they belong.

Shinkle and Spencer (2012) assert that the corporation must resolve the profit versus

principle conflict that may arise from choosing and ethical option over a profitable course of

action. There is not a clear moment in the life of a corporation where the ethical path is chosen

over profit. The simplicity of this assertion does not represent the dynamic and constantly

shifting dialogue surrounding climate change and global environmental corporate impact. Ethical

corporate behavior can be determined by ethics, but can also be led by profitable opportunity.

On the whole, the article does not fully address the complexity of dealing with the social

priorities of global cultures. The researchers state that each corporation does identify primarily

with its home country (Shinkle and Spencer, 2012). It is difficult to create an instruction book for

corporations explaining how to maneuver multiple societal expectations of environmental

accountability while still turning a profit in the diverse economic constructs that intersect

socially mandated environmental protection. The lack of commitment of corporations would

suggest that there is no social support or sustainability, or corporations are merely verbalizing

rhetorical support without real action. If all corporations were invested in protecting the

environment, then there would be a marked improvement in sustainability initiatives.

Peloza, Loock, Cerruti, and Muyot (2012) are able to more directly address the reasons

behind the lack of commitment to global corporate sustainability. Although consumers and

stakeholders report that sustainability is an important factor in decision making, the buying

power of these groups does not support the efforts of the corporate community. Peloza et. al


(2012) have a look at the perception versus the reality of corporate social responsibility. By

considering the way that environmental initiatives are marketed toward stakeholders, it is

possible to begin to understand how the stakeholders and the corporation interact with one

another to determine the value of actual improvement efforts. The term green washing has been

created to describe the act of talking about responsible sustainability actions without actually

improving environmental efforts and is a tactic used all over the world.

Consideration of the macro environment is a step in the direction of global sustainability

for corporations (Peloza et. al, 2012). By monitoring the events on a global scale that pertain to

environmental sustainability, it becomes easier to navigate the social dialogue and win favor with

stakeholders. At this point in our global corporate culture sustainability is more closely related

to public image and marketing than peripheral compliance. The perspective of this article takes

an honest approach and provides recommendations for corporations to better leverage

sustainability efforts (Peloza, et. al, 2012). However, it is still unclear how to manage the

sustainability narrative on a global level. If there is a superficial understanding of corporate

social responsibility in first world countries, then it seems quite difficult to imagine

understanding the ever changing environmental perceptions and actual needs of the emerging

global economy.

The change that is needed to align global economic growth and environmental

sustainability may be facilitated by groups that are outside of the traditional organizational

structures. Winchester (2009) states that the last few decades have produced more than two

hundred multilateral environmental treaties and more than a thousand bilateral agreements that

are working to protect the environment all over the world. Real traction has not been possible

because most of the treaties lack adequate financial backing and sanctions for non-compliance


are un-enforceable (Winchester, 2009). Examples like the Montreal Protocol, which successfully

reduced the CFCs being produced globally (Winchester, 2009) are rare due to the conflicting

scientific data that raises skepticism about the need for immediate action. Winchester (2009)

concludes that the combined efforts of economic, political and non-state actors will stand the

best chance to make real changes to the global environmental discussion.

Realizing the impact of education

Improving the quality of higher education is a sustainable way for nations to compete on

a global stage. Together China and India make up almost 25% of the world’s college student

population (Altbach, 2009). Both countries understand that providing more educational

opportunities will help expand their global profile and continue the already fast growth of their

economies. Both China and India have been forced to face the reality that they quality of

education available to its students is not competitive with other nations competing at the same

level. The size of the middle class in both China and India offers a huge challenge for the

infrastructure that is currently in place. By 2025, both countries will have a middle class of 500

million people, and significant percentages are going to want access to higher education

(Altbach, 2009).

Altbach (2009) discusses the setbacks that have effected both China and India’s

development of higher education. Limitations from Communism, influences from the Soviet

model in China and Colonization and the influence of the Western British model in India have

given these large populations many educational disadvantages. Now both countries are spending

considerable resources to build an infrastructure that can support high enrollment and also

provide high quality education. It is interesting to note that by drawing an international student

base, Universities can build a better program with more financial support (Altbach, 2009). By


considering this approach, these countries are beginning to see the potential for educating a

global as well as national workforce.

There are instances of misguided and ineffective business education taking place in the

United States and in emerging markets. Yavas and Dilber (1991) discuss the global challenges

that third world higher education models faced when they exploded onto the map in the 1980s

and offer a viewpoint to help steer the developments that nations trying to develop an effective

and culturally influenced program are searching for. Yavas and Dilber (1991) state that business

education cannot be adopted as a wholesale standardized program. The appropriate degree of

adaptation must be carefully assessed rather than joining the “bandwagon of carefree adoption”

(Yavas and Dilber, 1991). The idea that the Western model must be followed will not work.

Solutions at a national or regional level will provide the best chance for adoption and support.

There is also a danger in bringing in foreign instructors. If they do not adapt to the culture, they

cannot be effective teachers. Universities must provide enough information and work to retain

foreign professors in order for them to be valuable to the institution (Yavas and Dilber, 1991).

The assessment of Yavas and Dilbert does not challenge the big questions like funding or

sustainability. The authors strike down the idea of adopting a Western style of business

education, but are not able to provide concrete examples of alternatives. This omission of a

conclusion speaks to the difficulty that lies with creating a model that is globally appropriate

when there is so much diversity to account for.

Rajasingham (2011) has a well-rounded and insightful perspective on the challenges

facing universities in the global environment. Knowledge is changing and it is difficult to

measure the value of the various modes of learning that are being used. Open universities, e-

learning and increased access to internet and mobile technology are changing so quickly that it is


impossible to understand the impact on global education at this point (Rajasingham, 2011).

Rajasingham (2011) connects the changes in education to the changes that will affect teachers.

He wonders if teaching will be done by humans or computers in the coming decades. Student

expectations are also changing. Students expect more from education in the current climate and

assume that teachers and universities will adapt to meet those expectations.

Conclusion

There is much discussion about global issues that will impact the lives of all of us in the

future. By continuing the conversation and inviting more participation change will be possible.

There is a collective global responsibility to protect the global stage and improve the future of

business and political leaders in leading and emerging global societies. Education and

environmental conservation are vital to the success of the new global reality.


References

Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-Third of the Globe: The Future of Higher Education in China and

India. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 39(1), 11-31.

George A., S., & J. William, S. (n.d). The social construction of global corporate citizenship:

Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business, 47(Focus

on China Special Section), 123-133. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.02.003

Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., and Muyot, M. (2012). Sustainability: How stakeholder

perceptions differ from corporate reality. California Management Review, 55(1), 74-95.

Rajasingham, L. (2011). New Challenges Facing Universities in the Internet-Driven Global

Environment. European Journal Of Open, Distance And E-Learning, (1).

Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. (2012). The social construction of global corporate citizenship:

Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal Of World Business, 47(1), 123-

133. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.02.003

Winchester, N. (2009). Emerging Global Environmental Governance. Indiana Journal Of Global

Legal Studies, 16(1), 7-23.

Yavas, U. U., & Dilber, M. M. (1991). Viewpoint: Business education in the Third World

countries. Journal of Education for Business, 67(1), 7.


Artifact Summary 6: Gap Analysis

I have chosen my organizational cultural audit and gap analysis from OL 635 – Social,

Legal and Cultural Perspectives as my sixth artifact. We were asked to examine an organization

that claims to be socially and or globally responsible. This analysis was based on the Whole

Foods grocery chain. Better understanding the proclaimed values, norms and behaviors of the

organization revealed many opportunities for further development of the organizational

behaviors. Through this assignment, I learned a great deal about the effects of social

responsibility compared to the need for consumer choice. Whole Foods weighs the value of

variety compared to the global implications of importing products very carefully.

This artifact demonstrates my ability to evaluate choices and decisions required for social

responsibility and to evaluate components of and influences on organizational culture from the

course learning outcomes (St Mary’s University, 2013). This artifact also demonstrates the

Organizational Leadership program learning outcome number 2, which shows my ability to

understand how to integrate and apply analytical principle and skills to make complex strategic

decisions (St Mary’s University, n.d.). By analyzing the organizational decisions of Whole Foods

Market and better understanding the message versus the practices, I learned a great deal about

public perception and the reality of profitability.


References

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (n.d.). 2013-2015 Catalog & handbook: Schools of

graduate and professional programs. Retrieved from http://catalog.smumn.edu/mime

/media/view/12/824/2013-15-SGPP.pdf

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2013). M.A. in organizational leadership. Retrieved

from http://www.smumn.edu/graduate-home/areas-of-study/graduate-school-of-business-

technology/ma-in-organizational-leadership


Socially and Globally Responsible Organizations: Whole Foods Market Gap Analysis

Heather Anderson



OL 635: Social, Legal and Cultural Perspectives

Rick Bernardo and Hassen Hussein

August 18, 2013


Introduction

Whole Foods Market (WFM) is well known as a socially responsible corporation that

works to impact communities, the environment and the political regulation of sustainable food

practices. Sutherland (2011) provides insight about the individual perspective that helps explain

the allure of WFM. He states that: “Things are not what they are; they are what we think they

are. Things are what we compare them to and psychological value is often the best kind”

(Sutherland, 2011). For the customers of WFM, perception is being carefully controlled by the

corporate business model. Individuals can buy groceries and achieve a perceived emotional high

relating to the belief that spending money with the organization is benefiting the community, the

environment and the world (Johnston, 2008).

WFM has integrated corporate social responsibility (CSR) into its business model,

creating a single narrative and clear core values that appeal to specific value based networks

(Wheeler et. al, 2003). It is evident that the business, brand and CSR strategy are directly and

visibly linked (Blomqvist et. al, 2004). Application of CSR for Whole Foods Market means a

consistent performance across environmental, community, employee welfare, financial

performance and corporate governance commitments. Whole foods has worked to clear its

shelves of processed foods, offer sustainable seafood, support the production and distribution of

organic foods, provide loans for producers and change legislation around several agricultural

issues (www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/animal-welfare/collaboration-global-

animal-partnership). Johnston (2008) describes the integration of CSR into the WFM model:

“WFM frames ethical consumption as a seamless shopping experience where hybrid citizen-

consumers can express ethical concerns by eating delicious prepared foods and beautifully-

displayed produce in a fun shopping environment.” This sort of sustainability is pleasurable for


the customer and this helps them feel better about shopping at WFM. There are several key

components to the WFM mission and values statements. The company supports animal welfare

standards, organic farming, sustainable fishing and specific quality standards

(www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values). However, there are several instances of

imbalance within the WFM model that contradict the message and values of the company. I will

outline the gaps that WFM has created in true CSR and analyze the future implications of the

inconsistencies in the corporate message.

Products and Brand Promises

Success happens when business interests converge with the societal interests of

stakeholders (Wheeler et. al, 2003). WFM has integrated various programs into the

organizational structure that promote a convergence with a specific group of socially minded and

progressive consumers who also expect high quality and extensive choice. With the creation of

WFM, a specific value based network found a corporation to tie its desire for a more socially

responsible grocery retailer. WFM was able to create a great deal of relational capital and form

strong bonds with a loyal customer base by creating a united sense of what is valuable (Wheeler

et. al, 2003). WFM maintains quality standards that feature foods that are free from artificial

preservatives, colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated fats. There is an extensive list of

unacceptable ingredients for food listed on the company’s website that implies that there are

strict quality standards maintained for every product that is offered

(www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-

food). They seek out and promote organically grown foods and make many claims about the

superior quality of organic versus conventionally produced food products. Kannel (2012) asserts

that by supporting organic food suppliers, as well as giving consumers access to more organic


products, WFM has improved the sustainability of the agriculture industry. WFM also joined

forces with the Marine Stewardship Council in 1999 to sell seafood certified from this council

(www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/seafood-sustainability).

In 2006 WFM became the only Fortune 500 Company to completely offset energy costs

by using wind energy credits (Kannel, 2012). The company has also eliminated products

containing BPA and plastic bags from its stores. WFM has created partnerships with suppliers

that are unique in the grocery industry. They offer low interest loans to local producers, promise

transparency and honesty in supplier relationships (www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-

values/caring-communities/local-producer-loan-program).

John Mackey, the CEO and founder of WFM, has been integral in designing an

organizational structure that supports economic responsibility and employee quality of living as

well as corporate buy in at all levels of engagement. Executives’ pay cannot exceed 19 times that

which an average employee makes. This is compared to an average of 231 times for other

national CEO’s (Kannel, 2012). Mackey has also implemented teams that vote in new team

members after an initial 30 day trial. These teams are encouraged to be competitive and achieve

performance targets in service and profitability. Mackey (2013, February 22) states that a

business must make money, but that cannot be its only purpose. He believes that business leaders

must become conscious capitalists and create a different narrative that creates value for all

stakeholders as well as the environment (Mackey, 2013). Mackey and WFM have created a vast

structure of “soft” laws or commitments that hold them accountable for corporate social

responsibility (Vogel, 2006).


Gaps in the story

Values, assumptions and beliefs constantly change (Wheeler, 2003). WFM has

opportunities for further development of their social and global image of responsibility, but the

commitment to a higher level of CSR is unclear within the organization. Johnston (2008) uses

WFM as a case study to better understand how shopping provides an opportunity to create social

change. She uses the term “citizen-consumer” to describe a person who might shop at WFM to

support a specific political or social agenda (Johnston, 2008). Johnston’s (2008) research into the

conflict between consumer choice and global citizenship has brought to light one of the gaps in

brand promises of Whole Foods. Items like ready to freeze spring water ice cubes in plastic

wrappers, mangosteens from Thailand, and tamarillo from Columbia are sold at WFM. These

products create waste and increase pollution because they require a great deal of fossil fuel to

transport around the world. There are 72 different varieties of bottled water. The wide variety of

choices also include “conventional” products that do not have an apparent concern for

sustainability, worker’s rights or social justice (Johnston, 2008). It could be assumed by some

consumers that these items are more in line with the mission of the company than they truly are.

There is a lack of transparency in product offerings, which goes against one of the core values in

the mission statement of WFM (www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values). Johnston shares

that:

Even within the well-stocked shelves of WFM, consumers can opt out of citizenship

commitments to marginalized populations and ecologies, and prioritize individual self-

interest by purchasing cheaper, unsustainable foods that may be industrially produced,

out of season, conveniently packaged, or produced using exploited labor. At the same

time that WFM consumers purchase these products, they shop in an environment that


frames WFM consumers as ethical, healthy, and environmentally conscientious – even

though the consumer might end up at the check-out with imported Chilean raspberries, a

heavily processed and packaged “organic” meal imported from thousands of miles away,

and a box of General Mills Cereal (2008, p 251-252).

WFM provides marketing that encourages consumers to eat locally, but then its product offerings

support a wide variety of choice over providing a more limited and environmentally responsible

offering of local produce.

Organic farming avoids environmental liabilities such as pesticide use, pollution from

concentrated animal feeding, and land degradation, but does not solve all of the social concerns

of farming and food production that are raised by conventional farming (Kannel, 2012). By

promoting the industrialization of organic foods, WFM is supporting the mass transportation of

foods from around the world. Some of the produce sold by WFM is from China (Kannel, 2012).

The implication that organic is always a better option is another case of WFM not sharing the

whole story of their whole foods. The message and the actions of the organization do not always

match up.

The ethics of the founder and CEO, John Mackey, have also challenged the social and

ethical image of the company. During the merger with Wild Oats the FTC discovered that

Mackey had been attacking Wild Oats under an online pseudonym to attempt to lower the value

of the company. He reportedly posted over 1,000 entries over seven years with the intent to

smear the reputation of his competitor (Peters, 2008). Mackey has been controversial and his

presence within the organization has kept the focus on capitalistic success and growth above a

less profitable alternative reality.


Conclusions

While it is clear that WFM is making many strides to improve the quality of the

consumer experience and the food products that are available, WFM is not upholding the

sustainable and environmentally sound message that it claims to champion. The business model

created by WFM encourages consumer choice and does not address consumer restraint or the

idea of limiting consumption of resources (Johnston, 2008). The lack of transparency regarding

the impact of globally procured products that rely upon fossil fuels to travel to stores, the lack of

transparent information available about the local offerings and the lack of individual ethical

behavior on the part of the CEO all provide opportunities for WFM to move in a more ethical

and responsible direction. As more information about CSR becomes available to the average

consumer, the option to obscure the facts in favor of an incongruous message will become less

available. There is a gap in the message of WFM and the true profit focused business model that

is in place. The company intentionally sets out to connect with consumers that support local

business: “[a]s a company, we are set up very uniquely for a large business. Our stores are not

cookie cutter big box-type stores with directives from “corporate” about how to run the business”

(http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/caring-communities), but is not able to

provide evidence of a commitment to local farmers and producers.

Wheeler (2003) outlines Sethi’s 1975 model of the three levels of social involvement.

Level one is based on compliance and obligation to legal and market constraints. WFM has

clearly moved beyond this level and has made the decision to set itself apart from conventional

grocery chains by providing an experience more in line with certain social norms. Reacting to

social norms and meeting the demands of specific value based networks defines level two of the

model and is probably where WFM currently resides. The message and the myth of WFM would


have the consumer believe that there is an adaptive and socially responsive machine at the core

of the organization (Wheeler, 2003). The evidence does not support that WFM is working to

truly live up to the idea that profit and consumer experience are secondary to social

responsibility.


References

Blomqvist, K. H., & Posner, S. (2004). Three strategies for integrating CSR with brand

marketing. Market Leader, 33-6. An article outlining three ways to present CSR as a part

of an organization.

Johnston, J. (2008). The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of Whole

Foods Market. Theory and Society, 37(3), 229-270. Retrieved from

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hiscox/Johnston.pdf. A study of the user experience

and examination of the marketing and message of WFM.

Kannel, C. (2012, September 14). Corporate responsibility spotlight: Whole Foods Market [blog

posting] Retrieved from http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/09/14/corporate-

responsibility-spotlight-whole-foods-ma.aspx. Analyzes the profitability of the WFM

publicly traded stock.

Mackey, J. (2013, February 22). A conversation with John Mackey & Marc Gafni. [Video file],

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_JOyq1uAdc. An interview

exploring the concepts in the book, Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Spirit of

Business, written by John Mackey.

Peters, C. (2008). Unwholesome Practices: Will Sock Puppeteers be Held Accountable for

Pseudonymous Web Postings?. Shidler JL Com & Tech., 5, 4-24. Discusses the concept

of Sock Puppeteering in regard to organizational mergers and acquisitions.

Sutherland, R.(2011, December). Perspective is everything. [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_perspective_is_everything.html. A TED talk

about perspective in relation to happiness.


Vogel, D. (2006). Beyond the market for virtue. In the marketplace for virtue: The potential and

limits of corporate social responsibility (pp. 162-173). Washington, DC: The Brookings

Institution Press.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate

social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world.

Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28.

Whole Foods Market. Retrieved from http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values,

www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/caring-communities/local-producer-loan-

program,

www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-

ingredients-food, www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/seafood-sustainability

artifacts 5 and 6

Documents