Read The Case: Businesses Respond To The Movement For School ✓ Solved

Read The Casebusinesses Respond To The Movement For School Safetyat

Read the case “Businesses Respond to the Movement for School Safety” at the end of Chapter 2 and respond to the following: What was the public issue facing the companies in this case? Describe the “performance–expectations gap” found in the case. What were the stakeholders’ (community and school students) expectations, and how did they differ from businesses’ performance? If you applied the strategic radar screens model to this case, which of the eight environments would be most significant, and why? Apply the issue management process to this case. Which stages of the process can you identify? In your opinion, did businesses respond appropriately to this issue? Why or why not? If you had been a manager of one of the airlines or banks discussed in the case, what would you have decided to do (or not do) in the face of emerging public concern about gun violence in schools?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The movement for school safety, particularly in the context of rising gun violence, has significantly impacted various businesses, especially those related to finance, airlines, and retail sectors that operate near or serve school communities. The core public issue addressed in the case revolves around the increasing concern over gun violence in schools, prompting businesses to reconsider their roles, policies, and community responsibilities. This paper explores the nature of this issue, identifies the performance–expectations gap, analyzes stakeholder expectations versus corporate responses, applies the strategic radar screens model, and evaluates the issue management process in this scenario.

The Public Issue Facing the Companies

The primary public issue faced by the companies in the case was the escalating fear and concern over gun violence in schools, which posed reputational, operational, and ethical challenges. Community members and parents demanded that businesses take active stances on school safety, possibly by supporting anti-gun violence initiatives or modifying their corporate policies. Airlines, banks, and retail stores encountered pressure to demonstrate social responsibility and align their operational practices with community safety expectations. This situation highlighted a broader societal concern about gun control, youth safety, and corporate social responsibility.

The Performance–Expectations Gap

The performance–expectations gap in the case refers to the disparity between what stakeholders expected from these businesses and what the companies actually delivered in response to the school safety issue. Stakeholders, including community members and students, expected corporations to be proactive in supporting safety initiatives, advocating for stricter gun control laws, or implementing internal policies that reduce risks associated with gun violence. However, many businesses approached the issue cautiously or minimally, often due to concerns about alienating customers, legal liabilities, or neutrality on politically charged issues. As a result, stakeholders perceived that companies were not sufficiently responsive or committed to addressing the core safety concerns, thus widening the gap.

Stakeholder Expectations vs. Business Performance

Community members and students largely expected businesses to act as responsible corporate citizens—taking visible actions to promote safety and advocating for policies that would reduce gun violence. They wanted businesses to partner with schools, support legislation, or implement in-store and service policies that contributed to community safety. Conversely, businesses prioritized organizational concerns like customer satisfaction, legal exposure, and brand image, which often led to cautious or non-confrontational responses. Many firms avoided taking strong stands due to fear of boycotts or political backlash, which contrasted sharply with the stakeholders’ expectations for decisive, safety-oriented actions.

Applying the Strategic Radar Screens Model

The strategic radar screens model considers eight environments that influence business decisions: economic, political-legislative, social-cultural, technological, ecological, competitive, ethical, and global. In this case, the most significant environment would be the political-legislative environment, given the issue’s connection to gun laws, legislation, and government policies. This environment heavily influenced stakeholder expectations and corporate actions. The social-cultural environment also played a critical role, as public attitudes toward gun rights and school safety shaped the intensity and nature of stakeholder demands.

Issue Management Process

The issue management process involves several stages: issue identification, issue analysis, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, and evaluation. In the case:

• Issue Identification: Recognition of rising public concern about gun violence and school safety affecting businesses’ reputations and community relations.
• Issue Analysis: Assessment of stakeholder expectations, potential impacts on corporate reputation, and legal considerations.
• Strategy Formulation: Developing policies, partnerships, or communications to address safety concerns—some companies considered supporting legislation or public awareness campaigns.
• Strategy Implementation: Attempts by some businesses to increase transparency, participate in community safety efforts, or remain neutral.
• Evaluation: Monitoring stakeholder responses and adjusting strategies accordingly. Many companies received mixed feedback, with some criticized for inaction or insufficient effort.

Appropriateness of Business Responses

In my opinion, the responses of many businesses were mixed and often inadequate given the gravity of the issue. While some companies attempted to engage with safety initiatives, a significant number remained passive, often citing legal and neutrality concerns. An appropriate response would have been more proactive, demonstrating leadership in advocating for safer communities, supporting legislation, or implementing internal policies that prioritize safety. These actions could have bridged the performance–expectations gap, enhanced corporate reputation, and contributed positively to community well-being.

Managerial Decisions in the Face of Public Concern

If I were a manager of an airline or bank faced with increasing public concern about gun violence, I would prioritize public safety and corporate responsibility. Specifically, I would consider implementing policies such as banning firearms from company premises, supporting gun control legislation, and participating in community safety programs. Transparent communication with stakeholders about these efforts would be essential. While recognizing potential challenges like customer backlash, I believe that leading with a safety-first approach aligns with long-term corporate social responsibility and builds trust with stakeholders.

Conclusion

The case underscores the importance of proactive issue management in addressing societal challenges. Businesses operating in contexts influenced by social issues like school safety must recognize stakeholder expectations and respond authentically and decisively to maintain legitimacy and trust. Applying frameworks like the strategic radar screens model and issue management process enables companies to anticipate, analyze, and respond effectively to such complex issues, fostering sustainable corporate-community relationships.

References

• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.
• Hunt, S. D., & Gruninger, M. (1999). Contextual issues and the social responsibilities of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(4), 379-391.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Ferguson, R. (2020). Corporate responses to gun violence and community safety. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 78, 36-52.
• Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 281-292.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
• Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.