The Maersk Group may be defined as an integrated transport and logistics corporation that possesses a number of brands, as well as an international leader in the framework of container shipping and ports. Given such a substantial scope of the business, the company is to pay attention to its corporate social responsibility to retain a good reputation and significant brand globally (Sirsly and Lvina, 2016). This condition implies that the firm should continuously deal with various societal issues by developing and implementing appropriate strategies, the crucial of which will be discussed below.
First, it is the issue of open and inclusive international trade. Open access to various markets for global exporters might lead to adverse influence on employees if a job changes or disappears. In cases when this influence is not countered by inclusive corporate policies, the maintenance of open trade is undermined (Townsend et al., 2018). In order to address the described issue, strategic choices here would be an inclusive and gender-sensitive policy within the scope of societal protection, education, public dialogue, as well as decent work.
It might be assumed that The Maersk Group pays the necessary attention to this problem, given its latest sustainability report. There is a separate section on it that indicates the firm’s approach to the related strategic implementation. Maersk’s actions in this regard are as follows: inclusion and equality events, e-learning activities, conducted leadership training, continued focus on gender diversity, and working on LGBT inclusion (Maersk, 2019). This list shows that the company diversifies its inclusive activities so that the issue could be resolved and comprehended from different perspectives.
The second social threat for Maersk is the provision of safety to its employees. This aspect is essential for the significant performance of any company (Mullen, Kelloway, and Teed, 2017). Staff is a crucial element at all levels of internal and external processes. Hence, they should be put in conditions that will make them rely on the employer to a great extent and demonstrate notable dedication. In this regard, strategic choices should focus mainly on the following (Maersk, 2019). First, it is leadership accountability, which means that all managers should be considerably committed to safety. Second, it is the capacity for safe operations, which implies the provision of efficient controls during all operations. Third, it is the creation of an appropriate culture for safety, which is the increase in employees’ awareness of safety factors. Maersk arranges Leading Safety Differently workshops, identifies critical risks through the engagement of frontline staff, and “Launched the Learning Teams concept globally” (Maersk, 2019, p. 31). These activities of strategic implementation allow assuming that the company is successful in the framework given.
Finally, there is an issue of adherence to fundamental human rights. The latter is among vital preconditions for freedom and dignity for people. It may be considered as the foundation for inclusion and sustainability in a business (Haglund, 2019). If there is non-adherence to human rights in the company’s policies, it has no chance to remain recognized, respected, and competitive. Strategic choices here should be anchoring human rights in the firm’s governance structure, continuing to close gaps regarding standards for staff, and conducting analyses of occurring legal issues. Strategic implementation for Maersk is further development of the new Code of Conduct, analysis of ethical side of new technologies utilization, and participation in a number of local and global human rights initiatives (Maersk, 2019). Such an approach allows the corporation to follow the best practices in this vein.
Reference List
Haglund, L. (2019) ‘Human Rights pathways to just sustainabilities’, Sustainability, 11(12), pp. 1–19. Web.
Maersk (2019) Sustainability report 2019. Web.
Mullen, J., Kelloway, E. and Teed, M. (2017) ‘Employer safety obligations, transformational leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance’, Safety Science, 91(1), pp. 405–412.
Sirsly, C.-A. and Lvina, E. (2016) ‘From doing good to looking even better: the dynamics of CSR and reputation’, Business & Society, 58(6), pp. 1234 – 1266.
Townsend, B., Schram, A., Baum, F., Labonté, R. and Friel, S. (2018) ‘How does policy framing enable or constrain inclusion of social determinants of health and health equity on trade policy agendas?’ Critical Public Health, 30(1), pp. 115–126.
