Volkswagen Case Study Each Year, Fortune Magazine And Refere

Volkswagen Case Study Each year, Fortune Magazin... and reference page

Fortune Magazine publishes its Fortune Global 500 annually, listing the 500 largest companies worldwide based on revenue. In its 2016 list, Volkswagen (VW) was ranked as the seventh largest global company and the largest automobile manufacturer, narrowly surpassing Toyota. VW announced plans to establish a new automotive parts production facility in a small retirement community in Florida. The company chose this location due to its high quality of life, intending to develop a facility approximately 2 million square feet on 200 acres, employing about 1,600 workers and managers. The second preferred location is in Mexico. The city council has scheduled a public hearing in two weeks to discuss this potential development. This paper explores the stakeholders' likely positions regarding the proposed plant, including the main arguments for and against it, how VW representatives might respond, and additional benefits VW could offer to secure approval.

Paper For Above instruction

The proposal by Volkswagen to build a large automotive parts manufacturing plant within a small retirement community in Florida presents a complex array of opinions from various stakeholders. These opinions are influenced by economic, environmental, social, and community considerations. Understanding who is likely to support or oppose the project, along with the arguments they might invoke, is critical in evaluating the potential outcome of the public hearing.

Supporters of the Plant and Their Main Arguments

The supporters of the plant primarily include local government officials, economic development advocates, and some community members who prioritize economic growth. Local government officials, such as the mayor and city council members, are likely to favor the plant because it promises substantial economic benefits. The creation of 1,600 jobs in a small retirement community can significantly reduce unemployment levels, increase local spending, and boost the town's tax revenue, which can be reinvested into public services, infrastructure, and community projects. Such development aligns with urban renewal and economic revitalization goals, especially in a region that may have limited economic diversification.

Economic development organizations and chambers of commerce often support such initiatives, emphasizing the potential for long-term economic stability, increased business activity, and enhanced regional competitiveness. Additionally, some community members may welcome the influx of jobs, especially if they are previously unemployed or seeking career opportunities, thereby improving residents' livelihoods and supporting local needs.

Supporters also argue that VW’s investment would bring technological advancement, station new infrastructure, and foster regional industrial growth, positioning the community as an important hub within the automotive supply chain. Furthermore, the company might incorporate community engagement practices, contributing to local infrastructure and educational programs, which can generate positive social impacts.

Opponents and Their Main Arguments

Opposition to the plant is likely to be voiced by environmental groups, current residents concerned with quality of life, and some local residents wary of rapid development. Environmental activists might argue that such a large manufacturing facility could lead to air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and increased traffic congestion. The size of the plant and the associated infrastructure could threaten local ecosystems, particularly if the community is situated near sensitive natural areas.

Many local residents, especially retirees who value the tranquility and low-density lifestyle, may oppose the project due to concerns about increased noise, pollution, and the disruption of their community character. They might also worry about increased traffic, strain on local services, and the potential for rising living costs, which could impact the affordability and ambiance that drew them to the community initially.

Furthermore, some community members could view the development as incompatible with the region’s identity as a peaceful retirement destination, fearing that it could contribute to urban sprawl and diminish the community's appeal for future retirees or tourists.

VW Representative's Response to Opposition Arguments

VW representatives are likely to acknowledge environmental concerns and commit to implementing rigorous environmental management practices. They might emphasize how the plant will meet or exceed local, state, and federal environmental standards, utilizing advanced pollution control technologies and sustainable manufacturing processes. VW could also highlight plans for recycling waste, reducing emissions, and contributing to local conservation efforts.

To address community concerns regarding noise, traffic, and lifestyle disruption, VW could propose adopting best practices for community integration, such as noise barriers, traffic management plans, and community relations programs. The company might also commit to hiring locally wherever possible, thus maintaining community stability and providing economic benefits without causing significant disruption.

In addition, VW could offer to invest in local infrastructure improvements, such as road upgrades, parks, or educational initiatives, as part of a community benefits agreement. These measures can help mitigate negative impacts and demonstrate VW’s commitment to being a responsible corporate citizen.

Additional Benefits VW Could Offer for Approval

Beyond job creation and economic stimulation, VW could propose several additional benefits to gain community support. These might include investments in local infrastructure, such as road enhancements, public transportation, or community centers. VW could also fund educational and vocational training programs that prepare residents for employment at the plant, creating a skilled local workforce.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives targeting local environmental conservation, health initiatives, or charitable giving could also bolster community relations. Offering to establish partnerships with local schools and universities for research and development projects can position VW as a long-term community stakeholder.

Another potential benefit includes supporting local small businesses through procurement opportunities or supplier development programs, fostering a broader economic ecosystem that benefits the entire community. VW’s commitment to transparency and ongoing dialogue with residents can further establish trust and facilitate smoother project implementation.

Conclusion

The decision to proceed with the construction of Volkswagen’s automotive parts plant will inevitably involve weighing substantial economic benefits against possible environmental and community concerns. Support from local government and economic stakeholders is likely, provided VW demonstrates a genuine commitment to sustainability and community well-being. Conversely, opposition centered on environmental protection and community integrity must be addressed through comprehensive planning, responsible corporate practices, and community engagement. Ultimately, the success of the project hinges on VW’s ability to balance industrial growth with ecological and social responsibility, establishing a model for sustainable development within the community.

References

• Baron, D. P. (2014). Business and its Environment (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Brammer, S., & Walker, H. (2011). Sustainable procurement in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 1-21.
• Dutta, S. (2016). Volkswagen scandal highlights corporate environmental responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 607-620.
• Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Lee, M., & Saen, R. F. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in automotive industry: An empirical analysis. Business & Society, 51(3), 478-493.
• Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: The New Bottom Line? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 501–519.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
• Snider, M., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility in the U.S.: An Institutional Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 234-260.
• Sarkar, S., & Searcy, C. (2016). An extended stakeholder theory perspective of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 251-269.