In the article, Professor Paulette L. Stenzel cites the increasing number of multinationals across various continents actively participating in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Citing multinationals such as Coca-Cola, CEMEX and Mauser Group among others, Stenzel notes that many big companies are increasingly allowing their organizational behavior to be subjected to scrutiny by the system. GRI primarily focuses on how organizational behavior affects the environment, economy and social equity. The remarkable turnaround is evidenced by the number of organizations which are continuously releasing their sustainability reports to the general public since 2000 when the system was officially launched. The number increased by over 900 percent by 2008; from 50 to 507 firms. Evidently, more countries are increasingly adopting the system too. In addition, she notes that these organizations and business executives including Arnerich Massena and Ray C. Anderson have transformed their mission statements and plans to align them with sustainable development goals (Stenzel, 2010).
I agree with Stenzel that an increasing number of businesses are laying emphasis on social welfare and the environment. This is because over the years, international bodies such as United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and world governments have managed to sign environmental treaties aimed at environmental protection. Such moves were unprecedented in past due to intense lobbying from multinationals which feared such treaties would adversely affect their operations. Moreover, more companies are investing and financing projects in local communities they operate while more focus has turn to improving working conditions for employees. These are part of social welfare initiatives which is one of the pillars of sustainability. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an agenda and guideline for global and regional trade block meetings including G8 and Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Horrigan, 2007).
Rules and regulations, in any society, help in ensuring law and order while also protecting the most vulnerable. When individuals flaunt set laws, they forfeit some of the rights to the society; the society on the hand, has the ethical and moral right to punish the individual to punish the offender while also deterring others and reducing chances of recidivism. In sports and specialized institutions such as learning institutions, rules and regulations are especially important in instilling discipline and order which are vital for management and operations. And in sports, such disciple is crucial for success on and off the pitch. Punishing the one-half of the Behanville team that violated the curfew rule is vital is setting a precedent. It is also important in setting discipline standards which is important for team success. Moreover, a teacher is directly responsible for the team and can be held accountable legally in case of any legal case arising from the students’ nightly activities. On the other hand, punishing the students will not lead to a greater good since they forfeit the match and a once in a lifetime chance. The students may be demoralized and quit the team. Moreover, there is no indication that the students engaged in any activities that are illegal or that may affect their overall performance during the match. They have the right to engage in constitutionally legal activities.
I would advise the coach to consider the magnitude of the event before the team. Playing in a state championship is a historical occurrence the team considering their history. Such once in a lifetime events always overwhelm humans and affects rational thinking. Moreover, playing in the state championship is a chance for some to be noticed by the scouts; suspending them may deny them the chance for a better future. The coach should therefore opt for the choice that brings the great good: allow the students to play. However, he should give all of them stern warning and opt for another form of effective punishment after the game.
Stenzel, P. L. (2010). Sustainability, the Triple Bottom Line and the Global Reporting Initiative. globalEDGE Business Review 4(6), 1 – 2.
Horrigan, B. (2007). 21st century corporate social responsibility trends – an emerging comparative body of law and regulation on corporate responsibility, governance, and sustainability. MqJBL 4: 85 – 122.