| Course | PHL 736 Political Acumen and Ethics (PHL/736) |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Doctoral corporate social responsibility evaluation |
| Length | about 1,173 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHL 736 Week 4
Beyond the Food Bank Check: Evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility at a Food Processor
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PHL/736: Political Acumen and Ethics
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The learner, the company, its programs and all figures are composites written for a model paper.
Week 3 ended with a principle: the company's political positions should match its stated values. This paper examines those values in practice. Platte Valley Foods' website features a "Community" page highlighting donations, scholarships and sponsorships. The composite vice president of corporate affairs has been asked by the CEO to evaluate whether the company's corporate social responsibility is adequate, especially with a major expansion under public review.
Current Activities
The company gives about $600,000 a year: product and cash to regional food banks, 20 college scholarships for employees' children, sponsorship of the county fair and youth sports and matching gifts for employee donations. Employees volunteer at a food bank twice a year. The company does not publish a sustainability or CSR report. Its internal safety and environmental data are reported to regulators as required but not to the public.
The Pyramid of Responsibilities
Carroll (1991) proposed that a company's social responsibilities form a pyramid: at the base, the economic duty to earn a profit; above it, the legal duty to follow the law; then the ethical duty to act rightly and fairly where law is silent; and at the top, the philanthropic duty to give back to the community. All four, Carroll argued, should be fulfilled at once, with the ethical layer requiring firms to anticipate and respect evolving social expectations.
Applied to the company, the base is solid: it is profitable and growing. The legal layer is sound: no major violations in recent years. The philanthropic top is well developed. The ethical layer is thin. The company meets safety rules but its injury rate, while within industry norms, has risen on its fastest line; it meets its water permit but has not set goals for reducing use; and its growth contributes to a housing shortage that affects its own workers and neighbors. Philanthropy is substituting for ethical attention to the company's own impacts.
CSR as an Investment
McWilliams and Siegel (2001) proposed a theory-of-the-firm perspective in which CSR is treated like other investments: firms supply CSR in response to demand from customers, employees, investors and communities, and an optimal level can be determined by comparing costs and benefits. CSR attributes can differentiate products, attract and retain employees and build reputation.
For the company, demand is rising. Grocery chains buying prepared meals increasingly ask suppliers about worker welfare and environmental practices in supplier questionnaires. Turnover among hourly workers is high and costly. Regulators and neighbors are watching the expansion. These pressures suggest that investment in CSR targeted at operations would pay off, while more sponsorships would not address the demand.
Shared Value
Porter and Kramer (2011) argued that firms can generate economic gains by meeting social needs, so that business success and community progress reinforce each other, through reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain and enabling local cluster development. They distinguished shared value from philanthropy and from CSR focused on reputation.
Three opportunities fit the company. In the value chain, reducing ergonomic injuries through engineering and rotation would lower workers' compensation costs and turnover while protecting workers. Reducing water use per pound of product would lower treatment costs and ease pressure on the city's capacity, the top risk identified in Week 2. And in the local cluster, partnering on workforce housing and training with the community college would help the company hire while helping the town.
The company spends $600,000 on the community each year but has never asked what its own operations cost the community.
Gaps
The evaluation identifies four gaps: no assessment of which issues matter most to stakeholders and the business; no public targets on safety, water or emissions; no reporting beyond regulatory requirements; and no connection between CSR and the company's political activity, which Week 3 showed could conflict.
Recommendations
Conduct a materiality assessment, interviewing employees, customers, regulators, community groups and investors, and ranking issues by importance to them and to the business.
Set public targets for the top issues, likely including a reduction in recordable injuries, water use per pound and progress on housing.
Redirect part of the philanthropic budget to a workforce housing partnership with the city and a regional developer.
Publish an annual responsibility report with data on safety, water, employment and community investment.
Keep philanthropy, which communities value, but present it as one part of a broader program.
Phasing the Changes
Not everything can happen at once during an expansion. The vice president proposes three phases. During the first half year: the materiality assessment, baseline data on injuries and water and the housing partnership, which the city is already discussing. In the second year: public targets and the first responsibility report. In the third year: an independent review of the report's data. Philanthropy continues throughout at roughly its current level, though part of the budget shifts to housing.
Involving Employees
Hourly workers know where injuries happen and where water is wasted. The materiality assessment will include focus groups with line workers in English and Spanish, and the plant safety committees will help design ergonomic changes.
Measuring Success
Targets will be set after the materiality assessment, but likely measures include recordable injury rate, workers' compensation cost per hour worked, water gallons per pound, hourly turnover, number of housing units supported and customer scores on supplier questionnaires. Each will be reported annually.
The Shareholder Objection
A family board member raised a familiar objection: the company's job is to make money for its owners, and social programs belong to government and charities. The vice president's response draws on the frameworks. The recommended changes are not charity; they address costs the company already bears, such as injuries, turnover and treatment capacity, and risks that threaten the expansion. Even on a strict shareholder view, investments that lower those costs and risks are justified. Where the recommendations go beyond that, such as public reporting, they respond to customer requirements that affect sales.
Learning From Peers
Several larger meat and poultry companies publish sustainability reports with targets for injuries, water and emissions. The vice president reviewed three and found useful models for metrics, along with a caution: reports that set targets but do not report progress honestly draw criticism. The company's first report will include baseline data, even where it is unflattering, so later progress is credible.
Mixed Motives
The CEO asked whether these changes are ethics or public relations. Both motives are present. Better safety and water performance help the expansion and the company's customer relationships; they also reflect obligations the company owes to its workers and neighbors. CSR grounded in the company's real impacts is more credible precisely because it costs something and changes operations.
Conclusion
Evaluated against the pyramid of responsibilities, an investment view of CSR and shared value, the company's CSR is generous at the philanthropic level and thin where its operations affect people most. A materiality assessment, public targets, a housing partnership and annual reporting would shift CSR toward the company's real impacts. Week 5 addresses community involvement in more depth.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
What the PHL 736 Week 4 instructions ask
The fourth PHL 736 paper asks doctoral learners to evaluate corporate social responsibility. Learners usually define CSR, compare perspectives such as the shareholder view, stakeholder theory, the pyramid of responsibilities and shared value, assess an organization's current CSR activities against those perspectives, identify the issues most material to its operations and stakeholders and recommend a more effective approach with ways to measure results. Some versions ask learners to evaluate a published CSR or sustainability report or to compare two companies in one industry. Apply the frameworks to a specific organization, cite CSR research in APA and distinguish clearly between activities that look good and those that address the organization's real impacts.
How this PHL 736 Week 4 example is built
Our worked paper finds that the company gives about $600,000 a year to food banks, scholarships and local events while its most significant impacts, worker injuries, water use and pressure on local housing, receive little attention in its CSR materials. Using a four-layer pyramid that runs from profit and law up through ethics to giving, it shows the company strong on the top layer and thin on the ethical layer beneath. A theory-of-the-firm view frames CSR as an investment with costs and benefits, and the shared value approach points to opportunities in productivity, worker health and the local cluster. The paper recommends a materiality review, targets for injury and water reduction, a housing partnership and public reporting, with measures for each.
PHL 736 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
Doctoral graders reward CSR evaluations that test real practices against theory. Strong papers define CSR carefully, compare several perspectives with research support and assess the organization's current activities honestly. Credit goes to identifying the issues most material to the organization's operations, to recommendations that connect social and business value and to measurable targets. Graders also value skepticism toward CSR that is mainly public relations, attention to how CSR claims line up with political activity and supplier expectations and a realistic view of what the organization can afford to change in the near term. Cited CSR research in APA anchors a strong evaluation.
PHL 736 Week 4 help: mistakes to avoid
CSR papers often describe donations and volunteering as if they were the whole of social responsibility. Start with the organization's own impacts: on workers, communities and the environment. Another frequent gap is presenting frameworks without applying them. Use each to reach a conclusion about the organization. Learners also recommend programs without explaining how success will be measured; set targets. Some papers treat CSR as purely altruistic or purely strategic; most real programs mix motives, and saying so is more credible. Finally, check whether the company's political activity and its CSR claims agree. Tie every recommendation to a measure and an owner. A tutor can help you run a simple materiality assessment for your organization.
Related PHL 736 sample papers
Other PHL 736 week samples
- PHL 736 Week 1: Political Acumen
- PHL 736 Week 2: Regulatory and Legal Environment
- PHL 736 Week 3: Influencing Public Policy
- PHL 736 Week 5: Community Involvement
- PHL 736 Week 6: Ethics Across Countries
- PHL 736 Week 7: Organizational Transformation
- PHL 736 Week 8: Ethics and Influence Strategy
More DBA sample papers
- ORG 726 Week 4: Digital Transformation
- ORG 727 Week 4: Performance Gaps and Causes
- RES 709 Week 4: Problem and Purpose Statements
- RES 710 Week 4: Hypothesis Testing
PHL 736 Week 4 questions, answered
What does PHL 736 Week 4 usually cover?
It usually covers corporate social responsibility: definitions, competing perspectives, evaluating an organization's CSR and recommending improvements with measures.
Where can I find a free PHL 736 Week 4 sample paper?
The PHL 736 Week 4 CSR evaluation of a food processor can be read above, without charge.
What is Carroll's pyramid of CSR?
A model that arranges a firm's responsibilities as economic at the base, then legal, ethical and philanthropic at the top.
What is shared value?
Policies and practices that improve a company's competitiveness while advancing social and economic conditions in the communities where it operates.
What is a materiality assessment?
A process for identifying the social and environmental issues that matter most to a company's stakeholders and to its business, to focus CSR efforts.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PHL 736 week samples · All courses