Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America

Lisa Marie Segarra,David Johnson

Aug 07, 2017
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would
screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally
immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments
and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong
Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English
proficiency and a job offer with a high salary. Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply
for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable
international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of
points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond
the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law,
here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sustainable development and corporate social responsibility are closely related business concepts that have greatly affected
corporate governance in the early 21st century. Sustainable development involves the use of environmentally responsible and
efficient operational practices that preserve environmental resources crucial to your long-term business success. Corporate social
responsibility, or CSR, involves balancing corporate citizenship and environmental responsibility to give back to the communities in
which you operate.

Emergence
The foundation for sustainability and CSR have been around for along time. However, they have taken on new meaning in the early
21st century. Due to prominent business scandals, such as the accounting fraud involving energy giant Enron that contributed to its
December 2001 bankruptcy filing, and increased emphasis on environmental preservation, the public pays more attention to
company practices. Companies are becoming increasingly aware that operating in a way that benefits society now and in the future
can earn favor with core customers, white ignoring expectations for responsible activities can lead to negative public relations,
boycotts and general backlash from communities in which you do business.
Stakeholders
To achieve full congruence with these areas of responsibility, a company must operate with fairness and honesty with customers
and suppliers, give back to and actively participate in local communities, and value employees, while earning profits for
shareholders. Meeting expectations of each of these stakeholder groups is a tall order, and companies at times have created jobs
specifically in CSR to emphasize its importance.
The Environment
One factor integral to both sustainable development and CSR is the environment. Both emphasize environmental preservation,
recycling and renewal programs. Employers interested in supporting the environment may involve all employees in efforts to
promote green-friendly operations, offer paid time off for employees to participate in green activities or create recycling programs
promoted internally and with customers. Companies may also encourage employees to reuse materials and resources whenever
possible to cut down on costs and waste. Organizations truly committed to environment protection often invest in more green-
friendly resources and business processes.
Economic Development
Sustainable and responsible companies also recognize the importance of promoting economic development domestically and
abroad. Companies can demonstrate an emphasis on sustainable development by investing in suppliers that produce more natural
products. Global businesses can establish operations in less industrious nations and train or support local farmers or producers to
help build up their local supply network. This may include sending employees to foreign markets to train local workers and help build
stronger infrastructures that serve both local economies and the company

EXPECTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder expectations and corporate social responsibility

Stakeholders can be primary or secondary (Clarkson, 1995). Primary stakeholder groups comprise of employees, customers,
investors, suppliers, government, and community with whom the corporation may have a formal, official or anybody who has
claimed on the firm's even though it is not significant. They consist of both internal and external stakeholder groups. Internal
stakeholders comprise of employees and investors which are shareholder or bondholder, external stakeholders are the customers,
communities, suppliers, government, and the environment which claimed on the firm's if any damage occurs. Secondary
stakeholders are media and special interest groups towards a firm where they didn't have any contact with the firm, they just act
like a spectators.
Stakeholder theory has a number of strengths and weaknesses in its capacity to address issues of low-wage work. Classifying a group
as a stakeholder has moral import (Phillips, 1997, 2003; Cragg, 2002) and significant outcomes (Greenwood and Anderson, 2009)
which means that the classifying the stakeholder can ensure that their problems can be treated accordingly after it has been
identified. This theory can help various organizational functions such as Human Resource Department become more aware of their
activities that will affected the stakeholder which are usually from low wage workers. The less understanding about a the
stakeholder needs and will lead to disappointment to both parties especially if they ignore or didn't acknowledgement and centrality
of moral content in business decision making; thus holding the universal appeal of the attribution of morality to both stakeholder
and the management.
Leaders of a management are questioned with reminders of the importance associated with creating a compelling and shared vision
between them and the stakeholders. Given the current economic challenges faced by organizations, the vision of an organization
may become more important than ever and the participation from the satkeholder may help the management in making decision
accurately. Consequently, it may leads the management to revise and re-evaluate organizational visions with the intent of more
interference and discussion with the stakeholders which are quite important toward the successfull of the firm.

Stakeholders
Stakeholder theory is both related to and distinct from work within corporate social responsibility (CSR) because the stakeholders
are the claimant of anything that reflected the firm's decisions. CSR encompasses the wide proposition that business organizations
have to ethically responsible beyond maximizing profit for shareholders and obeying the law that has been regulate by the
government. Corporate social responsibility may seek to bring about positive impact on stakeholders such as employees and the
shareholders beyond what would occur through employment relationships with the owner which has been bound by the workplace
regulation.
In general corporate social responsibility are connected with how good the stakeholders are treated by organizations in seeking to
describe additional expectations for business organizations and their managers. Every organization inherently has a multitude of
internal and external stakeholders, each possessing some vested interest in the organization. While the relative importance and
claims of each stakeholder group can be argued, the primary stakeholders, those closest to the organization, are likely to have the
greatest interest in the perpetuity of the entity. Indeed, key primary stakeholders such as employees, customers, and
owners/investors have a considerable interest in the long-term viability of the organization. Consequently, it is also likely that these
stakeholders might have an intense interest in the vision of the organization. This contention is bolstered by the likely effects that
the recent economic crises have had on these primary stakeholders. Media reports replete with examples of organizational
downsizing, closure and liquidation have likely heightened levels of uncertainty and fear among these primary stakeholders who
have financial resources at stake.
Change in the external environment must, by necessity, lead to a re-evaluation of the strategic direction of the organization. This, in
turn, may require a re-thinking of the organization's strategic vision. Directly involving primary stakeholders in the visioning process
may enhance the planning process associated with possible change by providing leadership with key insight regarding potential
barriers that may impede the change process, as well as unknown driving forces that may accelerate the change process. Further, by
directly engaging the primary stakeholders, especially the employees, in the visioning process, there is an increased likelihood that
they will be supportive of future changesrelated to the vision.
The magnitude of effects felt by organizations as a result of the recent economic crises has left some organizations in a state of
disarray, somewhat akin to a medical patient being in critical condition. For these organizations, the most pressing issue or priority is
the engagement of strategic initiatives that will help facilitate recovery. While the visioning process is typically viewed as the
development of long-term ideals, the process may also generate some short-term benefits aiding in the recovery process. Since
primary stakeholders are intimately aware of the specific dynamics, circumstances, and consequences associated with the economic
crises, they are uniquely positioned to offer collective insights regarding strategic missteps or oversights that could have made the
impact of the economic crises less severe. Conversely, even in situations where the impact of the economic crises may have been
virtually impossible to avoid, primary stakeholders may have learned from events related to these crises that can be useful in
shaping a renewed vision that will better position the organization to weather similar storms in the future.
It has become almost cliché that employees are an organization's most valuable resource. At the risk of being overly
redundant, it is important to recognize that these employees are even more valuable given the current level of uncertainty in the
global environment. Without employees, a vision is meaningless because there are no resources to enact the vision. Likewise,
customers and owners or investors also become more valuable during times of economic uncertainty since they represent the
financial resources necessary to sustain organizational operations. Losses of any of these primary stakeholders could have
significant, negative implications for the survival of the organization. Thus, efforts to retain employees, customers and owners or
investors are of paramount importance.
At the very least, an awareness that management are undertaking the visioning process during uncertain economic times alerts
primary stakeholders to the fact that leadership is actively engaged in trying to better position the organization within a shifting
organizational context. This awareness of the visioning process may encourage stakeholders who are on the brink of separating from
the organization to reconsider. More importantly, efforts to directly involve primary stakeholders in the visioning process send a
powerful message to these groups that their input and continued involvement in the future of the organization are valued by
leadership. Since we all possess the desire to feel needed, this renewed sentiment of being needed may prompt primary
stakeholders to renew their commitments to the organization.generally have little power.

Developing stakeholder expectations.

Acknowledging employee value production

Despite their contributions to organizational success, low-wage workers in particular have little scope to have their voices heard,
either as individuals or as part of a wider group of workers as compared with shareholders who have voting rights. They incur risks
(often unwittingly and without ability to avoid or negotiate away those risks) and are not fully compensated for their contributions
to organization no matter what they had contributed for the firms.

Enhancing stakeholder voice

A decline in employee voice, both for individual employees and employees as a group, is well documented (Freeman et al., 2007).
The loss of voice is particularly acute for low-wage employees. But there are other powerless stakeholders that lack voice as well,
such as communities in poor countries.

CSR from stakeholders' perspective

A firm's survival and success depends on the ability of its managers to create sufficient wealth and satisfaction for its primary
stakeholders. If any of the primary stakeholder groups withdraws its support to the firm, the firm's operation is adversely affected
(Clarkson, 1995). This requires firms to identify and integrate crucial social issues, specific to each primary stakeholder, with
organizational policies and practices. For each stakeholder category, there should be dyadic ties between the firm and the
stakeholder group (Rowley, 1997). Accordingly, we define CSR towards each stakeholder group as the organization's policies,
processes, and practices towards that stakeholder group. Previous research has failed to examine CSR from the stakeholders'
perspective (Andriof et al., 2002; Post et al., 2002). There is a need to evaluate CSR from multi-stakeholder perspectives by
incorporating various stakeholder issues in local and global planes. Various global standards on CSR generally evaluate it on the basis
of a number of relevant stakeholder issues. We have referred to some of the global standards, and national regulations and
guidelines in India to examine CSR issues with respect to six primary stakeholder groups: employees, customers, investors,
community, natural environment, and suppliers.
BUSINESS IDEA BEHIND THE RISK OF CSR
Risk
Managing and controlling risk is key to running a successful organisation. Risk can be defined as the possibility of
suffering harm or loss. Within the area of CSR there are four general areas of risk.
1. Supply chain – country specific such as human rights abuses, or company specific risks such as pollution.
2. Operational risks – this covers compliance with regulation, employee satisfaction and dangerous operations
3. Product – this covers use of hazardous raw materials (e.g. nuclear energy) waste during production, and health and
safety issues.
4. Societal expectations – this covers what society demands of a business in the 21st Century

Governance

Poor governance reflects a culture where employees are not involved in the way things are done,

Good governance will ensure both current and future risks that affect all stakeholders are identified and that the
appropriate internal controls (accountability mechanisms, systems and procedures) are used to mitigate, and in some
cases, turn risk into opportunities.

Poor governance reflects a culture where employees are not involved in the way things are done, or even worse one
where corporate governance (the way a business operates and the role of the board) procedures do not exist and
whistle blowing becomes necessary.

Corporate reputation

An organisation’s reputation is built on its relationship with staff, customers, suppliers, investors and the community
they operate within. These stakeholders are the very same that CSR activities seek to involve. This is why CSR can help
maintain and enhance reputations.

A change in reputation can lead to a number of negative impacts such as a drop in share value of the a business, a
decrease in profitability as customer and staff loyalty drops, a decrease in business opportunities (as potential partners
question the trust and integrity), a decrease in new investment as the business is seen as a greater risk, and even
increased insurance premiums.

How to manage risk

First the risk needs to be identified. Having an organisational culture of accountability, transparency and staff
involvement (inclusiveness) is beneficial as staff and suppliers can act as risk detectors and feedback on early warning
signs.

Here HR has a role to play ensuring the culture of the organisation is one where there is a planned process that captures
this feedback. An example of this type of approach is that of Roche, a leading global pharmaceutical company, who
turned to Article 13 in 2001 for help in identifying dilemmas for employees involved within drug development side of the
business.

The pharmaceutical industry is a highly legislated and regulated environment with numerous industry standard
operating procedures (SOPs), guidelines covering all aspects of good practice in clinical trials, and review processes
through external ethics committees. Through facilitated workshops the dilemmas experienced by Roche employees in
everyday work that were not covered in SOPs or in Roche’s own corporate principles were identified and their impacts
analysed.

The findings revealed that the organization could be at risk if staff did not have a planned way to deal with dilemmas e.g.
an ethical concern became a full-blown issue if left unmanaged. The need for some type of internal support for staff on
ethical decisions and responsibilities became apparent. Staff did not want another ‘policy’ but a process that enabled
staff to engage with the issues and resolve them.

From this debate a process that dealt with four key themes: patients, colleagues, trust and integrity was developed. The
approach was trialled and human resources staff and trainers have been key to integrating the approach into training
and induction sessions.
Through trialling, measures of success have been developed so that its implementation can be monitored and the
approach improved. The strength of this work was the governance and buy-in generated by participation alongside the
flexibility of bringing in facilitators and champions of issues in society.

This example demonstrates the emergent “involve me’ culture reflected in the wider corporate social responsibility
agenda in which stakeholders, in this case employees, are working in partnership with their organization to deliver an
environment where risk, or indeed opportunity, is identified and managed.

 “De-risking” - the role of HR

HR has a crucial role in the development and implementation of CSR within an organisation. The development
and implementation of CSR policies acts as a mechanism to support employees facing “risks”.
 By first benchmarking your organisations performance on CSR activities you will identify areas of risk.

Other tactics include:

 Workshops to engage with staff and suppliers to explore areas of risk
 Develop interactive intranet sites that show case examples of good practice, or build in opportunities for
promotion of good practice at staff meetings
 Review company policy and procedures to ensure values are consistent – procurement, recruitment, training,
appraisals and exit interviews
 Consult and involve staff more in the running of a business
 Provide feedback questionnaires for employees, customers and suppliers – to show the organisation is living its
values

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO BUSINESS

CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

Three key areas capture many of the factors covered by the above typologies and cultural stereotypes, where cultural
differences can make a significant difference at the company-tocompany and face-to-face levels. These are organization,
leadership, and communication (see Figure 5.4).

Organization

Organization styles range from organic, informal, or people oriented to systematic or mechanistic, formal, or task
oriented, in keeping with some common organizational dimensions described by sociologists throughout history (such as
Max Weber and Emile Durkheim). Organizations that operate very much around personal relationships and social
networks contrast those that are much more functional and logical. In fact different cultures and different firms display
elements of both these characteristics, but the balance varies considerably and can create tensions when groups of
people or firms from different ends of the spectrum interact or try to cooperate. As an aid to predicting differences
among individuals, groups, or firms, and understanding the significance of these variations, relative differences among
countries, organizations, and groups of people are important, rather than any absolute scores. For example, family
companies are characteristically directive, individual oriented but organic. Multinational firms are usually more
autocratic and mechanistic. Consulting and professional services firms are often mechanistic and emphasize individual
performance and rewards but may also be fairly team oriented. Entrepreneurial new ventures will usually be organic,
unsystematic, and group oriented.

Leadership

Leadership styles range from individual oriented, directive, autocratic, top down, or authoritarian to group oriented,
participative, democratic, bottom up, or egalitarian. Again, cultural groups and corporations often encompass both kinds
of leadership but tend to reflect one dominant style. Individual managers from cultures that score high on the power
distance or assertiveness dimensions are likely to be viewed by those from other cultures as autocratic and directive but
will tend to view others as indecisive and too compromising. They will not want to spend too much time discussing
issues to achieve a consensus. If they also reflect an organic or informal (low uncertainty avoidance) culture, this will
result in an instinctive or unsystematic decision-making and implementation style, and they might be viewed as an
unpredictable autocrat. This contrasts the combination of high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance, which
results in a more directive and mechanistic style. Such leaders prefer established formal routines and a command-and-
control bureaucracy, while other managers are likely to see this as over-regulated and inflexible. The Pharmacia and
Upjohn case demonstrates a range of these styles and the problems that result from the imposition of a new style of
organization and leadership within a corporate merger.

Communication
Clearly, at the face-to-face level language differences can be the most prominent barrier to communication and
therefore to cooperation and coordination. English speakers tend to have an advantage in many situations since English
has emerged as the main language of business globally. However, this has led to complacency among some indigenous
English speakers, notably the British and the North Americans. First, less effort is often made to learn other languages
and their associated cultures, which normally limits a manager’s understanding of foreign colleagues, workers, or
customers. Second, the assumption is often made that once the language barrier is broken cultural differences are also
removed, whereas these may remain, causing miscommunication and misinterpretation. As for much of this chapter on
culture, preparation and awareness are the best starting points for minimizing differences that can create problems. It is
through efficient communication that two parties steer toward an understanding— a mutually agreed basis for doing
business. The signs and signals on this route to an understanding are strongly influenced by culture. Different groups
have different ways of displaying approval or of showing frustration in negotiations and different ideas of what
constitutes a final agreement. The Japanese do not really have an equivalent word for the English “no” and indicate
disapproval in a range of non-verbal ways. The Japanese word hai does mean “yes” but it often means “yes, I understand
what you are saying” not “yes, I agree with what you are saying.” Germans place a lot of emphasis on written
communications and documented evidence rather than verbal interaction, compared to the Spanish and Italians to
whom verbal interaction and agreement is recognized as binding in some contexts. The Americans prefer legal contracts
and have armies of lawyers to make agreements highly specified. Other, more organic business cultures tend to work
toward a relationship in which trust and understanding replace the need for legally binding contracts. Again, awareness
through preparation and anticipation of differences is the best starting point for avoiding culture clash. The corporate
response How have MNEs responded to the challenge

MODERN MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO A RESPONSIVE CSR PROGRAM

Business Management and Time: Strategies for Competitiveness

Business management trends have evolved over decades to capture the zeitgeist of business trends, as well as to deal
with how firms can be competitive and successful. This reality has galvanised a plethora of business models, theories
and approaches aimed at developing management strategies to cope with future challenge. Although Charles H. Duell
theorised that “everything that can be invented has been invented” (cited in Meserve, 1998, p. 38), organisations can
reinvent their business strategies and models by focusing on how to transcend business challenges as a consequence of
innovation, CSR challenge and sustainability. Below is how this could be achieved

Creativity/Inventiveness

In her piece, “How to Kill Creativity” (1998) published in Harvard Business Review, Teresa Amabile considers creativity
as the value of new and useful ideas; this means that creativity resides primarily in the realm of idea generation, which if
well appropriated could lead to innovation (Reid & Oliver, 2009, p. 2). Thus, organisations that follow management
trends seem to constantly create ideas that will sustain their productivity level given the pressures of changing market
environment, niches, competitors and other business vagaries such as CSR criticisms. This management approach is
crucial in the era of new media technology, when information management as well as new social media plays important
roles in CSR issues and stakeholder engagement.

Innovation

According to Drucker (1986), innovation is about the Schumpetarian creative destruction, which inheres in realigning the
old to fit into present realities in business. Organisations that constantly renew their management strategies according
to business/management trends are usually more competitive than others. A lot of surveys and studies have been done
that support the need for firms to renew their skills, knowledge and strategies for innovative ideas (Reid, 2009) that
bring growth. Innovation could be closed, open, incremental, gradual or disruptive. No matter the dimension of it,
innovation is a critical strategic tool in the current global business order for competitiveness. Thus, a reinvention of
firms’ CSR communications channels will be advantageous, as they open up multiple channels and platforms through
which other stakeholders could engage to avoid criticism. This will in the final analysis impact positively on
organisations’ corporate reputation and market gains.

Extension of Product Lifecycle through CSR Communication

This is imperative for brand extension as well as for prolonging value of products and services. Businesses that want to
do well set themselves targets and objective based on guidelines (business strategies) on how to be afloat as well as to
continually remain competitive. This could be achieved through product lifecycle, which deals with how their products
and services sell at a given period and attendant change in terms of sales over a given period of time. This resonates
with management trends. Thus, companies could extend the lifecycle of their products and services by making credible
their CSR commitment, as well as sustainable business decisions (O’Connor and Shumate, 2010, p. 530). This will bring
confidence in the minds of consumers or customers and stakeholders. A re-invented corporate communications strategy
guided by principles of inclusive engagement, which new media engenders is relevant in achieving this (Morsing &
Schultz, 2006)
Entrepreneurship and Product Leadership

This is another point that needs to be considered in relation to trends in management. Although the ace management
scholar, Peter Drucker, brought our attention to the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation (as the
latter being an integral facet of the former), Reid (2009, p. 86) highlighted three aspects of entrepreneurship: corporate
venturing, strategic renewal and 16 Uzoechi Nwagbara, Patrick Reid innovation. Deductively, entrepreneurship is
broader than innovation; it takes the skills and knowledge gained from innovation and turns them into business
opportunities via management and leadership process for market gains. In CSR, one of the ways for firms to cash in on
business opportunities is by engaging in social enterprise projects, stewardship and other forms of businesses that will
help other stakeholders develop their environment for sustainability. This again can be a business strategy that firms can
leverage on, which is a strategic tool for market gains as well as product leadership.

Research and Development (R&D)

This is an essential aspect of growing businesses as well as remaining on the path of business trends for some
organisations. Research and development opens a vista of creative knowledge, identification of novel ideas and business
solutions (Armstrong, 2009). R & D equips organisations with creative energies to outdo their competitors since it is a
wellspring of fresh and innovative ideas. Research is no doubt a fountain of knowledge for human, organisational and
corporate development. On the heels of the Druckerian “knowledge economy”, which he articulated in his seminal book,
The Age of Discontinuity (1986), it is vitally needed as a strategic tool for profitability. Semantically, the term
“discontinuity” means breaking from the continuum, that is, to break from present practice and become trendy. In a
business sense, it entails reworking business strategy according to the demands of the present that is hugely knowledge-
based following the pressures of innovation, new information technologies and some CSR issues. So, research and
development in CSR issues is a big platform for this “sweet pot” – market gains – what Goldenberg et al (2003) call “a
flurry of ideas” (p. 3) for responsible investments by firms in the face of changing business models that require
competitive strategies.

Learning Organisation

This is a concept attributed to Peter Senge (1990), which he articulated in his book, The Fifth Discipline. The main point
here is that for organisations to be perceived by other stakeholders as CSR sensitive, they have to routinely re-tool their
business models by nurturing new ways of thinking responsibly – and by continually learning new approaches to act
socially responsible in consonance with changing business times. A learning organisation regularly adjusts its business
antenna via this phenomenon. Thus firms should be learning organisations that take into consideration issues that affect
society, the environment and business for mutual representation of interests borne out of recognising the importance of
the triple bottom line. This process brings to mind sustainability challenge. Within these parameters, organisations have
to adjust their management strategy within the confines of Elkingtonian triple bottom line model, a paradigm in the
language of modern business that endorses sustainability.

Value Creation

Value creation is one of the ways organisations can create wealth (Porter, 1985; Amit & Zott, 2001; Hansen &
Birkinshaw, 2007). In this context, this can amount to promotion of ideas and models that enhance social and
environmental learning necessary for transcending stakeholder criticism, which facilitates maximum return to capital
employed. In this sense, corporations will create wealth. The concept was popularised by the Harvard management
professor, Michael Porter in his book, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (1985).
Porter outlines five steps to create wealth, which organisations could appropriate to be ahead on the game in business.
Within the remit of CSR, companies could do this – by creating value in the eyes of other stakeholders – to be perceived
as being socially responsible, which would impact their business gains and reputation management.

Systemic Inventive Thinking (SIT)

This is a concept developed by Stern, Biton & Ma’or (2006). It is about developing fresh and new ideas as well as
business opportunities by manipulating existing products and services (p. 15) to create wealth. Central to this business
strategy are five steps to arrive at SIT: applying existing tool or product, creating virtual products, identifying needs,
benefits and markets, identifying feasibility of the product under review, and adaptation/challenges. These five steps are
considered to be “SIT-speak” (Biton & Ma’or, 2006, p.16). This means that firms are engaging in systematic inventive
thinking (SIT). To arrive at this, Finke’s paradigm, function follows form (FFF), should be applied: “instead of innovating
by identifying a ‘function’ or need and then creating a product accordingly, one first manipulates the existing product
and then considers how the new form could be of benefit” (Stern, Biton & Ma’or, 2006, p. 15). Thus, corporate
communications strategies can be re-invented through this platform. The new media technology affords corporation
opportunities to diversity their business opportunities, as well as publicise their CSR commitment given the speed,
frequency and reach of information as well as CSR reports made public via this process.

Technological Change – Social Media

This is imperative in the current business dispensation when a lot of business opportunities rely heavily on new
technology such as new media – social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others) – to thrive. McKinsey estimate
that these global communities have grown to some 1.5 billion members (Chui et al., 2012). Technological breakthroughs
have reconfigured the ways businesses are run globally: What happens in the UK, US, Asia or Africa reaches the end of
the world in minutes as against what it used to be in the past. This is a strategic management tool that organisations
could appropriate to better their reputation and business gains given the enormous reach and pace of communication
that comes with this development. It is also a potent instrument for managing relations in the case of CSR
communications, which relies hugely on technology for effectiveness. The new social media, which is a correlate of new
technology, is a case in point; it can be used by companies to advance sustainable communication.