1.

Case Study – Amul Corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been defined as the “commitment of business to
contribute to sustainable economic development working with employees, their families, the
local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life, in ways that are both good
for business and good for development.” To meet with the CSR it Is expected that a business in
its entire procurement-production-processing-marketing chain should focus on human
development involving the producer, the worker, the supplier, the consumer, the civil society,
and the environment. Indeed, a very tough task, Most businesses would certainly flounder in not
being able to achieve at least one or many of those expectations. But AMUL has shown the way.
CSR-seneltlve Organizational Structure AMUL Is a three tier co-operative organization. The first
tier Is the co-operative society at the village, of which; milk producers are voluntary members,
managing the co-operative through a democratically elected 9-member managing committee, and
doing business by purchasing milk from members and selling it to the district level co-operative.
There are more than 11,000 co-operatives In villages of Gujarat. The second tier Is the district
co-operative that processes milk into milk products, markets locally and sells surplus to the state
co-operative for national and International marketing. There are 12 district co-operatives each
being managed by a 15-member board elected by the college comprising the nominated
representatives or chairmen of the village co-operatives. Third tier Is the state level cooperative –
the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) responsible for national and
international marketing of milk and mllK products produced and sold to It. The GCMMF Is
managed by the board democratically elected by and from amongst the chairmen of the district
co-operatives. The entire three-tier structure with the GCMMF at its apex, is a unique institution
because It encompasses the entire chain from production of raw material to reaching the
consumer with the end product. Every function Involves human intervention: 23.60 lakh primary
milk producers; 35,000 rural workmen in more than 11,400 village societies; 12,000 workers In
15 dairy plants; 750 marketing professionals; 10,500 salesmen In distribution network and
600,000 salesmen in retail network. Accumulation of human capital Is sine qua non for the
development and growth of any enterprise or economy. The GCMMF is sensitive towards CSR.
It believes that technology and capital ere replicable Inputs but not the human capital, Since men
are the basis for achieving the CSR, the GCMMF lays emphasis on their development Into:
competent, courteous, credible, reliable, responsive communicators and performers, CSR-
sensitive Business Philosophy The first step towards discharging the CSR Is the business
philosophy of the GCMMF. It is two-fold: one, to serve the interests of milk producers and
second, to provide quality products to consumers as value for money. Evolution of an
organizational system has ensured that the corporate social responsibility towards the primary
milk producers, village and the ecological balance is fulfilled. The milk producers are paid for
their milk in “accordance with market forces and realization of value for their produce,
invariably the price paid to the member-producers. In Gujarat Is higher by 15 per cent than the
national average. CSR-orientation To Distributors & Retailers the GCMMF has identified the
distributors and retailers are its important link In Its vendor supply chain. Through surveys the
GCMMF found that 90% of the distributors do not get any opportunity of exposure to latest
management practices. The GCMMF realized that it was a corporate social responsibility to
strengthen the core business processes of its distributors so as to keep them in mainstream
business and compete with those with formal training in management. The GCMMF has
developed and trained all its distributors through Value-Miss ion-Strategy Workshops,
competence building, Amul Yatra, Amul Quality Circle meetings, computerization, and
electronic commerce activities.

Competency Building Module of the GCMMF is meant to infuse professional selling skills by
making the distributors and their salesmen aware of latest sales management tools and
techniques; enhance their knowledge of products; positioning and segmentation strategies for
various products. Under Amul Yatra the distributors and their salesmen are taken on a visit to
Anand. During this visit they are shown dairy plants, their upkeep, international standards of
hygiene and quality; the practices adopted for clean milk production, and above all the
cooperative philosophy. Through one to one talk with the farmers, the distributors and salesmen
realize AMUL is a large business of small farmers. The visit leaves an everlasting impression on
their minds that by selling AMUL products, they are discharging a social responsibility towards
a large number of poor farmers whose livelihood depends upon their skill and integrity. They
feel proud that they are participants in development of rural society and thus in nation building.
Earnings of GCMMF Nurturing its primary members – the milk producers – is the first mission
of the GCMMF. Discharge of this responsibility is reflected in the manner in which the GCMMF
conducts its business and shares its earnings. The milk from the village co-operatives is
purchased at an interim price. So as to maximize the earnings of the milk producers the GCMMF
changes the product profile during the fiscal and directs its sales and marketing activities towards
those products that would bring in maximum returns. True! Every business organization follows
the same principle. But the GCMMF follows it with the central interest of the producers. During
the fiscal, as the GCMMF finds that from its earnings it is possible to pay more to the producers
for milk, the final price is declared higher than the interim price being paid. Before the GCMMF
closes its financial accounts the co-operatives are paid ‘price difference’, the amount between the
interim price and the final price. Thus profit of the GCMMF is very low. The net profit (PADT)
of the GCMMF during 2003-04 was Rs 7.31 crore against a turnover of Rs 2.947 crore, a meager
0.25%. Further out of the net profit of Rs 7.31 crore. Rs 4 crore was given as share dividend to
the co-operatives. To fulfill its corporate social responsibility towards its milk producers and co-
operatives the GCMMF works on razor thin profits and retention of funds. CSR-oriented To
Staff The GCMMF hires and trains people to take advantage over its competitors. It has
developed in-house modules for training and competence buil-ding to improve and up grade of
their knowledge; communication skills to understand the customer, be responsive to customer
requirements, and communicate clearly for trouble shooting of problems. They are expected to
be courteous, friendly, respectful, and considerate to the customer. To improve the credibility
and trustworthiness of the managers it is important they perform consistently and accurately
every time and at all times. The structure of salary and perquisites is altogether different. The
first and foremost the staff must get satisfaction from the job they. They are recognized for their
contribution (Climate Survey) CSR-AMUL WAY

Question 1: How do you associate the values and ethics of the organization with the
execution of Corporate Social Responsibility?

Question 2: Do you suggest that CSR should be included as one of the important elements
in the Mission statement of the Company?
2. Case- Facebook and Our Fake News Problem

The 2016 election season generated many headlines, some of which are notable for being
blatantly false. Fake news ranged from, “the Pope endorsed Donald Trump” all the way to
“Hilary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.”

Did “fake news” influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election? While the answer
is unclear, one thing is certain. The rise of fake news has reached unprecedented levels and has
raised serious concerns about how citizens receive their news and form opinions.

The increase in fake news has several sources. Social media platforms like Facebook gave these
stories the same visibility as news publications, such as those from the New York Times or Wall
Street Journal. Moreover, these posts often had higher engagement rates (comments and
reactions) resulting in them receiving even higher visibility and prevalence in users’ news feeds.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially downplayed the problem, calling it a “pretty crazy
idea” that fake news on Facebook influenced the election. Zuckerberg has since begun to address
the fake news issue, but warns, “We must proceed very carefully… and must be extremely
cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.”

The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics with four principles: seek truth and
report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent. But the
transition to online platforms has fundamentally changed journalism. Google and Facebook
control 80 percent of ad revenues; the same revenue source that news publishers depend on.
Moreover, more than 40 percent of people now get their news from social media networks –
making Facebook a de facto middleman in people’s intake of news.

Facebook is taking the problem seriously, albeit with a great deal of caution. They have
introduced efforts to help users spot fake news and inject indicators of trust (disputed tags) into
their posts in partnership with a few institutions. They have also banned fake news sites from
advertising on the network.

Question: Does Facebook have an obligation to address the fake news problem? If so, what
should be done about it?

Case 3

Napster Copyright Infringement Case Duplicating software for friends, co-workers or even for
business has become a widespread practice. All software programs are protected by copyright
laws and duplicating them is an offense. How, then, has making illegal copies become such a
common and accepted practice in people’s homes and places of work? Part of the answer
revolves around the issue that software isn’t like some other intellectual property. Intellectual
property is that which is developed by someone and is attributable directly to the thinking
process. Software is different from a book in that anyone can easily copy it and an exact
replication is achievable. Another reason is related to cultural differences. People don’t see copy
as stealing. People don’t find anything wrong in making a video copy of a hit feature film and
selling it or hiring out. People defend their behaviour by saying: ‘Everybody does it! I won’t get
caught! Or no one really loses!’ The same issue of copyright is involved in the famous Napster
case in America. Napster is an online service that allows computer users to share high-quality
digital copies (MP3s) of music recordings via the internet. The San Mateo-based company
doesn’t actually store the recordings on its own computers, but instead provides an index of all
the songs available on the computers of members currently logged on to the service. Napster,
therefore, functions as a sort of clearing house that members can log on to, search by artist or
song title, and identify where songs of their interest are so and download them from another
user’s hard drive.Napster has become one of the most popular sites on the internet, claiming
some 15 million users in little more than a year. Indeed, so many students were downloading
songs from Napster, that many universities were forced to block the site from their systems in
order to regain bandwidth. Napster’s service has been almost as controversial as it has been
popular. Barely a year after its launch, it was sued by the Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA), which represents major recording companies such as Universal Music, BMG,
Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and EMI. The RIAA claimed by allowing users to swap
music recordings for free, Napster’s service violated copyright laws. It also sought an injunction
to stop the downloading of copyrighted songs owned by its members as well as damages for lost
revenue. It argued that song swapping via Napster and similar firms has cost the music industry
more than $300 million in lost sales. A few months after the RIAA lawsuit was filed, Metallica, a
heavy metal band, and rap star Dr.Dre filed separate lawsuits accusing Napster of copyright
infringement and racketeering. Lars Ulrich, Metallica’s drummer, told a senate committee that
Napster users are basically stealing from the band every time they download one of its songs.The
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) grants immunity to Internet Service Providers
for the actions of their customers. Napster attorneys argued that the company has broad
protection from copyright claims because it functions like a search engine rather than having
direct involvement with music swapping. However, according to the legal community, ‘Napster
does not take the legal steps required of search engines in dealing with copyright violations.
‘Despite its claim, Napster was found guilty of direct infringement of the RIAA’s musical
recordings. To date, the service has not been shut down, because doing so could violate the rights
of artists who have given Napster permission to trade their music. However, the company was
required to block all songs on a list of 5,000 provided by the RIAA

Questions

1. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong in copying software, music or a video film?
2. Based on the facts of the Napster case, who do you think should have control over
intellectual property- the artists or distributors of their work
Copying of software, music and films is very common in India. Is it due to our socioeconomic
factor?

Case 4: Targeting a Broken Heart

In 2017, Facebook’s “People Insights” blog published a post titled “What Mends a Broken Heart
on Facebook.” In it, the company’s researchers detailed insights that they had gathered by
examining “how the break-up moment influenced the online behaviors of people across France,
the Netherlands, Poland, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom who indicated on
Facebook that they recently went through a break up.”

One of their findings was that “there could be a gap between the break up itself and the Facebook
post announcing it. During the two weeks before and the two weeks after their break-up
announcement,” they explained, users “accepted more than one invitation to an event 40% more
than [during] the 60 days before and 60 days after their announcement.”

The researchers also noted that “’Healing,’ ‘detox,’ ‘drowning sorrows,’ ‘binge watching’
and ‘suffering’ are just some of the words and phrases that are more pronounced in men’s posts
before they mark themselves ‘Single.’ The same types of words and phrases are more
pronounced in women’s posts on the actual day of their announcement.”

As to what helps people get over a breakup, Facebook researchers wrote that “[g]aining new
experiences… seems to be more therapeutic than buying things.” Under the subhead “What it
means for marketers,” the post then asks, “How can brands be a part of the journey to help mend
people’s broken hearts?” Suggested answers include “Empathize with them” and “Offer them
new experiences.” The post concludes by encouraging potential Facebook advertising clients:
“Tracking signals of intent to travel, experience new things or take up a new hobby can help you
reach this group with a relevant ad at the right time.”

Is it ethical for Facebook to mine its users’ posts for signals that those users are about to go
through a break up? Is it ethical for the company to then help its clients target their ads based on
this research?

Is what Facebook is doing different from what other companies do?

Question: How might Facebook’s actions be perceived through the ethical prisms of
utilitarianism, rights, justice, virtue, and the common good? For more on those
perspectives, see “Thinking Ethically.”

Case 5: Instagram and the Ethics of Privacy

Founded in 2010, Instagram considers itself to be “a fun and quirky way to share your life with
friends through a series of pictures.” By downloading the free Instagram mobile application (or
app), users snap a photo with their mobile phone, then choose a filter to transform the image, and
can share it on various sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The company views itself as more
than just a photo-storage tool but a way “to experience moments in your friends' lives through
pictures as they happen. We imagine a world more connected through photos.”

In April 2012, the 13-employee company was acquired by social networking giant Facebook for
approximately $1 billion. In less than three years, Instagram has become one of the fastest
growing social media platforms as seen by its estimated 12 million daily users.1

Dilemma

In December 2012, several months after being acquired by Facebook, Instagram announced new
changes to its privacy policy and terms of use. According to the updated terms, "a business or
other entity may pay Instagram to display users' photos and other details in connection with paid
or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you," and there was no
apparent option to opt out.2 The backlash was immediate. Photographers and celebrities were
particularly upset, given that their photos were a part of their own businesses and brand images.

Instagram was quick to respond that its intention was simply to improve advertising. Co-founder
Kevin Systrom posted, “Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like
to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was
interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation.
This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our
intention to sell your photos.”3

Instagram's privacy policies and terms of use were once again updated in January 2013. The
current terms state, “You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free,
transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post.” 4 Instagram also
reserves the right to share users information (including analytics information, log files, cookies,
and location data, as well as the content users post) with companies affiliated with Instagram
(mainly Facebook), third-party service providers, third-party advertisers, and “other parties.” 5

While the initial backlash against Instagram has been quelled, there is still uneasiness among
users regarding privacy issues. Instagram has to walk a fine line to keep its users happy and still
turn a profit. On one hand, Instagram offers a free service to users, which up until this point has
been free of advertisements, unlike other social media platforms like Facebook. In order to
remain a viable company, Instagram has to bring in revenue somehow, and advertising seems the
obvious choice.

Our Response

We believe that it is not unreasonable for Instagram to try to make money using member photos
for several reasons. Firstly, it would be foolish for Instagram to walk away from such a lucrative
revenue opportunity. On January 17, 2013, it announced the following powerful statistics6 :

 90 million Monthly Active Users

With staggering numbers such as these, how could a zero-revenue company not optimize these
opportunities? And let us not forget that Facebook purchased the company for $1 billion in cash
and equity in April 2012. Facebook owes it to its shareholders to try to monetize Instagram
considering how much it spent on this company in addition to Facebook’s subpar performance
since going public last year.

Secondly, users pay absolutely nothing for using Instagram's services; there is no price per photo
uploaded, monthly/annual subscription required, or pricing scheme of any sort. Individuals and
celebrities are not the only ones who derive personal benefit from Instagram, but businesses, too.
Many small businesses like to use Instagram as a marketing tool because it is free and effective.
For instance, some will upload pictures of new product arrivals to lure new and/or existing
customers to come in and purchase. Not to mention, businesses like to have Instagram accounts
because the service allows them to build their brand and customer loyalty through daily/weekly
posts, thus, giving them the venue to engage and interact with customers in ways they could not
do previously.

Question

How much, if any, of our information should Instagram be able to share with third-parties and
advertisers?

OR

Why are Instagram users making such a fuss about the revised privacy policy if they are gaining
so much personal satisfaction and/or business from a service that is free?