It may not be retailers’ responsibility to fill the void of “the public good,” but it is an opportunity for them. CVS and Dick’s took risks by dropping tobacco and firearms sales (respectively), and the moves have paid off over the long run. Target has donated 5 percent of its profits to local charities going back to its roots as a division of a department store company. You can’t put a price on the kind of goodwill these moves created.

Meanwhile, the trend is gaining speed as customers perceive their government failing to address the same issues — such as gun safety or the environment. Retailers can take a visible position on these issues (without wading into controversy) since they are the most consumer-facing industry out there.

Since companies and corporations are “citizens,” yes, I think they have a responsibility to act as a good citizen. This is not to suggest they replace government in any way, but good citizens help and contribute when and where they can. The examples in the article are terrific. CVS especially has woven good citizenship into being a core part of their brand promise. It’s a perfect fit. A win for all. Businesses can do nothing, or do something, and whatever choice is made it ultimately becomes part of the brand promise.

Growing consumer outrage over plastic waste has made corporate social responsibility a retail priority. Retailers and consumer goods brands that demonstrate leadership by creating innovative, sustainable products and business strategies will gain an edge over rivals.

We all have a responsibility to have a positive impact on our world and to address gaps in society’s well being, and retail organizations are no exception. However, beyond being a responsibility, doing good also represents an opportunity for retail. This is really a no-brainer: helping the community helps build community. And we know very well that stores that thrive are stores that are active members of their community. The potential positive impact on stores that support their community is tremendous, and I would love to see more C-level attention on how to expand the role of the stores in their communities. It would be good for society, it would be good for the local employees, and it would be good for the bottom line.

It is everyone’s responsibility. CPGs, retailers, and consumers must and should pitch in and help in areas that give back to the community or to communities that have been hit hard by natural disasters, etc. Yes, the government is ultimately responsible, but who are we as a society if we see the pain and just shrug it off and say, “not my job”? Doing things that help to build a better society, whether by Home Depot helping hurricane victims to rebuild, or Nestlé Waters handing out water is a good thing and should be recognized and rewarded.

Doing good always correlates with doing well, if you believe that reputation and brand equity matter. Awareness of needs that are community based and nationally needed motivate people and regardless of the controversy about corporations being people they are still made up of people in the C-suite and elsewhere. So it’s no surprise that retailers are taking up the gauntlets they perceive as necessary for a better society. It’s a win/win for retailers and citizens.

There is a huge philosophical break between asking if retailers have a responsibility to serve society and if it correlates with doing well in business. That would be the equivalent of an individual volunteering for a cause with the expectation that they will receive a job offer or some other form of payback down the road. That is not responsibility or volunteerism, it’s quid pro quo and that’s the problem when corporations “volunteer,” “donate,” or “support,” almost always they are looking for a goodwill benefit on the backside.

Real community support would be making a donation anonymously/quietly, giving paid time off to employees to volunteer (not wearing branded clothing), or similar altruistic mechanisms. If that doesn’t happen, it isn’t authentic “responsibility.”

Properly used, the word responsibility overtly, rather than implicitly, connotes the existence of an obligation. Must retailers address gaps in society’s well being? Obviously not. Should they address such issues? As members of the communities and larger society or societies they operate in, the answer is probably yes, but only if the scope of their efforts is clearly defined, consistent over time, sustained, and not exploitative. Ethics — individual or corporate — should never be an exercise in opportunism or selective application. For example, CVS has opted not to sell tobacco products, but they still sell products loaded with sugar and salt. If their corporate ethics call for the elimination of all products whose long-term use represents a potential threat to their customers’ health, their soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, candy, and many of their packaged food items containing high levels of sugar and/or sodium would have to go. So commendable as it may be, CVS’s move away from tobacco sales isn’t a move toward a full commitment to becoming “responsible” for shoppers’ well being. As… Read more »

NO! They do not have a responsibility. They may have beliefs or even find that the idea of doing good things adds to the bottom line. Yes, a better society may make more revenue. But companies, retail or otherwise, are companies and not people (or patriots) and their responsibly is to their owners.

For example, Arkansas ranks among the lowest states in education, but the area around Bentonville is one of the best in the country. Why? Because of Walmart’s investment into local education. It helps everyone in the area and helps Walmart in the future. Responsibility? No! Smart? Yes!

Stores are local. They rise and fall with the communities they serve. Many do good works out of a sense of pride, others out of “enlightened self-interest.”

Chains are remote. Some may regard “corporate social responsibility” as a shareholder value checkbox for their annual report. Others may bake CSR into their essential culture out of genuine belief. There’s a spectrum of ways that retailers can have a positive effect, ranging from straight-forward charity, to hiring and compensation policies, to merchandising choices, to environmental practices, and more.

These decisions may influence brand reputation and ultimately shopper loyalty. As a confirmed cynic, I tend to believe that economic interest usually drives retailers to adopt socially constructive policies.
That’s OK with me. Sometimes in an organization purity of intent can emerge as the result of positive actions, even if they are undertaken for selfish reasons.