Deck 17: Managing Corporate Social Responsibility Globally

Question 1

ON ETHICS: Your employer encourages you to contribute to CSR causes using your personal time. Do you have a problem with this? Why?

Answer 1

Corporate social responsibility refers to an organizations inbuilt self regulatory mechanism to monitor and ensure its compliance with laws, ethical standards and environment. In this process organizations work to create a positive impact through its action on its stakeholders including employee, environment, shareholders, customers, suppliers and society
If my organization is looking forward to actually do something in the area of CSR activity I will definitely look ahead to support and devote my time in that. However, before devoting the time I will also like to analyze if the activity is actually benefiting the society and organization as well. Also being accountable for my responsibilities in family I would like to strike a balance in contributing time for the CSR activity as well as to my family.
By devoting my personal time I will like to set a motivation for those employees in the organization who are against the CSR activity. Also it is my moral obligation to serve the society so if I will get this opportunity I will go ahead.

Question 2

Using PengAtlas Map 4.3, in your opinion, which country would be at the greatest risk from a profit perspective if its firms aggressively pursued in CSR values regarding human rights?

Answer 2

From a profits perspective, organization that are aggressively following the social responsibility considering human rights will be at risk in countries where the human rights laws are strict.
As the profits reaped will be invested back in activities which are for human welfare would eventually reduce profits for the company.
It has been seen that larger the labor force, the more strict human rights laws it will have.
Thus, according to the data Nigeria, Indonesia India will be such countries where the companies might face risk if they will follow aggressive human rights CSR.

Question 3

Microfinance is an emerging area of individualized financial investment in developing countries that is based on social responsibility principles. However, since it involves the investment of resources with the expectation that a profit will be made, microfinance investors tend to search for regions and portfolios that have the highest profitability. Analyze information in a global data set to determine which areas of the world seem to have the most profitable microfinance activities. What conclusions can you draw from this information?

Answer 3

Micro financing refers to the process of providing finance to small borrowers who cannot take it from traditional banks. Traditional banks provide loans only to the borrowers giving security.
They do not lend smaller amounts of loans to the poor who do not have anything to keep for security.
Nigeri a has most profitable micro finance activities.

Question 4

Compare PengAtlas Map. 4.5 with Map 1.1. Suppose your firm is located in a developed economy that is considering curbing carbon emissions, which could create severe problems for your firm and threaten its existence. Would you recommend relocating operations to an emerging economy that still has many people in desperate need of employment and where the government is defiantly resisting any restrictions to curb such emissions because its scientists have different views of the risks than many in the United States? What are the pros and cons of relocating?

Question 5

How do the concerns of a primary stakeholder differ from those of a secondary stakeholder?

Question 6

Wolves are the planet's most widespread land-based large mammals. They used to be humans' most direct competitors for meat. As a result, the Big Bad Wolf occupied a center stage in our psyche as a demon character in many cultures. Humans fought wolves for ages. Relentlessly shot, poisoned, and trapped, wolves were completely defeated in these old wolf wars. In Yellowstone National Park the last gray wolf was killed in 1926. In the continental United States (except northern Minnesota), the gray wolf was completely exterminated by 1950.
However, winning the wolf wars made (some) humans feel guilty. In 1995 and 1996, the US Fish and Wild Life Service deliberately reintroduced 66 wolves captured in Canada into the wild by releasing them into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho's wilderness. By 2009, more than 1,600 wolves populated the northern Rocky Mountain states (primarily Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), and smaller packs penetrated northeastern Washington (state) and Colorado. "The West is getting wilder by the hour," declared National
Geographic. Wildlife enthusiasts and tourists were elated. In Yellowstone, thousands of tourists came to watch wolves every year, adding millions of dollars to the local economy. The revival of the gray wolves was viewed one of the most resounding victories of the Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973. In 2008, gray wolves in Wyoming were declared no longer endangered by the Department of the Interior. In 2009, gray wolves in Montana and Idaho started to enjoy such a status. Finally, in 2011, gray wolves in eight states across the West and upper Great Lakes were delisted.
Will humans and wolves live happily ever after? Not likely! "Packs are back," wrote National Geographic, "Westerners are glad, scared, and howling mad." Other than the group who are glad, a lot of people are scared. Small children, cats, and dogs are no longer safe in wolf-infested areas. A pleasant walk in the woods may result in unpleasant encounters. But two groups are howling mad. First, hunters complain that too many elk have become wolf food. In a region struggling with economic hardship such as lumber mill closures, wolves are direct competitors for meat to feed the family. In some places, "Howdy?" is replaced by "Get your elk yet?" Some folks openly talk about taking the matter into their own hands by shooting the wolves as their forefathers did. A popular bumper sticker sports a crossed-out wolf with the caption "Smoke a Pack a Day."
The second group that opposes the reappearance of gray wolves is ranchers who raise livestock such as cattle and sheep for a living. Wolves literally eat into the thin profits of ranchers and jack up the price of beef, lamb, milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream that all of us have to pay. A pack of wolves (generally about 3 to 10) typically kills a (wild) elk or a cattle calf every two to three days. In a single night, a pack of three adult wolves and five pups killed 122 sheep on a ranch in Montana, consuming little to no meat- the adults were probably teaching the pups how to kill. Wyoming and Montana compensate ranchers for livestock loss to wolves (for example, about $600 a calf) if ranchers can prove that such losses are due to wolf kills. The trouble is that if ranchers do not find and document a carcass right away, scavengers such as grizzly bears may drag off or shred all the evidence. For every wolf kill that is compensated, several more are uncompensated. In addition, surviving cattle harassed by wolves over one season can lose 30 to 50 pounds each. Further, livestock with injuries scratched by unsuccessful wolf chases or with infections from wounds are not marketable, and ranchers have to eat such losses. Finally, stress results in a lot of livestock miscarriages.
Some ranchers are aware of their CSR. One was quoted as saying: "We have to realize that the general US population wants wolves. That population is also our customers for beef. It's not a good idea to tell your customers they don't know what they're doing." But, the other side of the debate argues: "Isn't the thinking that the CSR of cattle ranchers is to tolerate their livestock being wolf feed going too far?"
Frustrated ranchers cannot defend their private property by shooting wolves. Instead, they vote politicians on a pro-wolf platform out of office and fill state legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with candidates who vow to make wolves go away. After gray wolves were delisted from the (federal) engendered species list in Wyoming, the state government immediately labeled them varmints (or pests), allowing virtually unlimited shooting and trapping. A resulting lawsuit filed by environmental and animal-protection groups forced the Department of the Interior to temporarily put wolves back on the endangered list. Taking the lesson, Montana and Idaho, after wolves were delisted in their states, labeled them game animals and set quotas for the first legal wolf hunts in their history-75 in Montana and 220 in Idaho. In addition, Idaho started shooting wolves from helicopters to kill predators that biologists say are harming elk herds. In response, angry environmentalists went back to court again, arguing that the legislative removal of wolves from federal protection was unconstitutional and that wolves would be annihilated again. Overall, the age-old wolf wars continue to rage. But in this new chapter, wolf wars are not waged between wolves and humans- instead, they are waged between different groups of humans with opposing views (the rural folks populating the cattle country versus the urban types who vow to protect wild animals at all costs). So stay tuned.
Case Discussion Questions :
ON ETHICS: Compensating ranchers for wolf kills is a solution. However, as state budgets shrink and economic recession bites, should taxpayers (including many who do not hunt and do not make a living by ranching) foot such an escalating bill? (An expanding wolf population will need more food, which will result in more livestock losses.)

Question 7

ON ETHICS: Your CPA firm is organizing a one-day-long CSR activity using company time, such as cleaning up a dirty road or picking up trash on the beach. A colleague tells you: "This is so stupid! I already have so much unfinished work. Now to take a whole day away from work? Come on! I don't mind CSR. If the company is serious, why don't they donate one day of my earnings, which I am sure will be more than the value I can generate by cleaning up the road or picking up trash? With that money, they can just hire someone to do a better job than I would." What are you going to say to her? (Your colleague makes $73,000 a year and on a per-day basis she makes $200.)

Question 8

What does it mean for a corporation to have a triple bottom line?

Question 9

Wolves are the planet's most widespread land-based large mammals. They used to be humans' most direct competitors for meat. As a result, the Big Bad Wolf occupied a center stage in our psyche as a demon character in many cultures. Humans fought wolves for ages. Relentlessly shot, poisoned, and trapped, wolves were completely defeated in these old wolf wars. In Yellowstone National Park the last gray wolf was killed in 1926. In the continental United States (except northern Minnesota), the gray wolf was completely exterminated by 1950.
However, winning the wolf wars made (some) humans feel guilty. In 1995 and 1996, the US Fish and Wild Life Service deliberately reintroduced 66 wolves captured in Canada into the wild by releasing them into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho's wilderness. By 2009, more than 1,600 wolves populated the northern Rocky Mountain states (primarily Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), and smaller packs penetrated northeastern Washington (state) and Colorado. "The West is getting wilder by the hour," declared National
Geographic. Wildlife enthusiasts and tourists were elated. In Yellowstone, thousands of tourists came to watch wolves every year, adding millions of dollars to the local economy. The revival of the gray wolves was viewed one of the most resounding victories of the Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973. In 2008, gray wolves in Wyoming were declared no longer endangered by the Department of the Interior. In 2009, gray wolves in Montana and Idaho started to enjoy such a status. Finally, in 2011, gray wolves in eight states across the West and upper Great Lakes were delisted.
Will humans and wolves live happily ever after? Not likely! "Packs are back," wrote National Geographic, "Westerners are glad, scared, and howling mad." Other than the group who are glad, a lot of people are scared. Small children, cats, and dogs are no longer safe in wolf-infested areas. A pleasant walk in the woods may result in unpleasant encounters. But two groups are howling mad. First, hunters complain that too many elk have become wolf food. In a region struggling with economic hardship such as lumber mill closures, wolves are direct competitors for meat to feed the family. In some places, "Howdy?" is replaced by "Get your elk yet?" Some folks openly talk about taking the matter into their own hands by shooting the wolves as their forefathers did. A popular bumper sticker sports a crossed-out wolf with the caption "Smoke a Pack a Day."
The second group that opposes the reappearance of gray wolves is ranchers who raise livestock such as cattle and sheep for a living. Wolves literally eat into the thin profits of ranchers and jack up the price of beef, lamb, milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream that all of us have to pay. A pack of wolves (generally about 3 to 10) typically kills a (wild) elk or a cattle calf every two to three days. In a single night, a pack of three adult wolves and five pups killed 122 sheep on a ranch in Montana, consuming little to no meat- the adults were probably teaching the pups how to kill. Wyoming and Montana compensate ranchers for livestock loss to wolves (for example, about $600 a calf) if ranchers can prove that such losses are due to wolf kills. The trouble is that if ranchers do not find and document a carcass right away, scavengers such as grizzly bears may drag off or shred all the evidence. For every wolf kill that is compensated, several more are uncompensated. In addition, surviving cattle harassed by wolves over one season can lose 30 to 50 pounds each. Further, livestock with injuries scratched by unsuccessful wolf chases or with infections from wounds are not marketable, and ranchers have to eat such losses. Finally, stress results in a lot of livestock miscarriages.
Some ranchers are aware of their CSR. One was quoted as saying: "We have to realize that the general US population wants wolves. That population is also our customers for beef. It's not a good idea to tell your customers they don't know what they're doing." But, the other side of the debate argues: "Isn't the thinking that the CSR of cattle ranchers is to tolerate their livestock being wolf feed going too far?"
Frustrated ranchers cannot defend their private property by shooting wolves. Instead, they vote politicians on a pro-wolf platform out of office and fill state legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with candidates who vow to make wolves go away. After gray wolves were delisted from the (federal) engendered species list in Wyoming, the state government immediately labeled them varmints (or pests), allowing virtually unlimited shooting and trapping. A resulting lawsuit filed by environmental and animal-protection groups forced the Department of the Interior to temporarily put wolves back on the endangered list. Taking the lesson, Montana and Idaho, after wolves were delisted in their states, labeled them game animals and set quotas for the first legal wolf hunts in their history-75 in Montana and 220 in Idaho. In addition, Idaho started shooting wolves from helicopters to kill predators that biologists say are harming elk herds. In response, angry environmentalists went back to court again, arguing that the legislative removal of wolves from federal protection was unconstitutional and that wolves would be annihilated again. Overall, the age-old wolf wars continue to rage. But in this new chapter, wolf wars are not waged between wolves and humans- instead, they are waged between different groups of humans with opposing views (the rural folks populating the cattle country versus the urban types who vow to protect wild animals at all costs). So stay tuned.
Case Discussion Questions :
ON ETHICS: While "wolf wars" take place in the United States, "elephant wars" in Africa (elephants leave protected areas and destroy crops) and "tiger wars" in India (tigers leave protected areas and attack livestock and children) feature similar tensions. Answer Questions 1 to 3 above, using either "elephant wars" or "tiger wars" as your background.

Question 10

ON ETHICS: Hypothetically, your MNE is the largest foreign investor in Vietnam, where dissidents and religious leaders are reportedly being persecuted. As the country manager there, you understand that the MNE is being pressured by NGOs to help the oppressed groups in Vietnam. But you also understand that the host government could be upset if your firm is found to engage in local political activities deemed inappropriate. These alleged activities, which you personally find distasteful, are not directly related to your operations. How would you proceed?

Question 11

Using Table 17.2, summarize the four types of strategies that can be used to make CSR decisions.

Question 12

Devise two examples: one in which a corporation's participation in a social issue adds value to the firm and one in which it decreases value in the eyes of the shareholders.

Question 13

Using a resource-based view, explain why some firms improve their economic performance by adopting a CSR strategy, whereas others achieve either no results or damaging results.

Question 14

Wolves are the planet's most widespread land-based large mammals. They used to be humans' most direct competitors for meat. As a result, the Big Bad Wolf occupied a center stage in our psyche as a demon character in many cultures. Humans fought wolves for ages. Relentlessly shot, poisoned, and trapped, wolves were completely defeated in these old wolf wars. In Yellowstone National Park the last gray wolf was killed in 1926. In the continental United States (except northern Minnesota), the gray wolf was completely exterminated by 1950.
However, winning the wolf wars made (some) humans feel guilty. In 1995 and 1996, the US Fish and Wild Life Service deliberately reintroduced 66 wolves captured in Canada into the wild by releasing them into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho's wilderness. By 2009, more than 1,600 wolves populated the northern Rocky Mountain states (primarily Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), and smaller packs penetrated northeastern Washington (state) and Colorado. "The West is getting wilder by the hour," declared National
Geographic. Wildlife enthusiasts and tourists were elated. In Yellowstone, thousands of tourists came to watch wolves every year, adding millions of dollars to the local economy. The revival of the gray wolves was viewed one of the most resounding victories of the Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973. In 2008, gray wolves in Wyoming were declared no longer endangered by the Department of the Interior. In 2009, gray wolves in Montana and Idaho started to enjoy such a status. Finally, in 2011, gray wolves in eight states across the West and upper Great Lakes were delisted.
Will humans and wolves live happily ever after? Not likely! "Packs are back," wrote National Geographic, "Westerners are glad, scared, and howling mad." Other than the group who are glad, a lot of people are scared. Small children, cats, and dogs are no longer safe in wolf-infested areas. A pleasant walk in the woods may result in unpleasant encounters. But two groups are howling mad. First, hunters complain that too many elk have become wolf food. In a region struggling with economic hardship such as lumber mill closures, wolves are direct competitors for meat to feed the family. In some places, "Howdy?" is replaced by "Get your elk yet?" Some folks openly talk about taking the matter into their own hands by shooting the wolves as their forefathers did. A popular bumper sticker sports a crossed-out wolf with the caption "Smoke a Pack a Day."
The second group that opposes the reappearance of gray wolves is ranchers who raise livestock such as cattle and sheep for a living. Wolves literally eat into the thin profits of ranchers and jack up the price of beef, lamb, milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream that all of us have to pay. A pack of wolves (generally about 3 to 10) typically kills a (wild) elk or a cattle calf every two to three days. In a single night, a pack of three adult wolves and five pups killed 122 sheep on a ranch in Montana, consuming little to no meat- the adults were probably teaching the pups how to kill. Wyoming and Montana compensate ranchers for livestock loss to wolves (for example, about $600 a calf) if ranchers can prove that such losses are due to wolf kills. The trouble is that if ranchers do not find and document a carcass right away, scavengers such as grizzly bears may drag off or shred all the evidence. For every wolf kill that is compensated, several more are uncompensated. In addition, surviving cattle harassed by wolves over one season can lose 30 to 50 pounds each. Further, livestock with injuries scratched by unsuccessful wolf chases or with infections from wounds are not marketable, and ranchers have to eat such losses. Finally, stress results in a lot of livestock miscarriages.
Some ranchers are aware of their CSR. One was quoted as saying: "We have to realize that the general US population wants wolves. That population is also our customers for beef. It's not a good idea to tell your customers they don't know what they're doing." But, the other side of the debate argues: "Isn't the thinking that the CSR of cattle ranchers is to tolerate their livestock being wolf feed going too far?"
Frustrated ranchers cannot defend their private property by shooting wolves. Instead, they vote politicians on a pro-wolf platform out of office and fill state legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with candidates who vow to make wolves go away. After gray wolves were delisted from the (federal) engendered species list in Wyoming, the state government immediately labeled them varmints (or pests), allowing virtually unlimited shooting and trapping. A resulting lawsuit filed by environmental and animal-protection groups forced the Department of the Interior to temporarily put wolves back on the endangered list. Taking the lesson, Montana and Idaho, after wolves were delisted in their states, labeled them game animals and set quotas for the first legal wolf hunts in their history-75 in Montana and 220 in Idaho. In addition, Idaho started shooting wolves from helicopters to kill predators that biologists say are harming elk herds. In response, angry environmentalists went back to court again, arguing that the legislative removal of wolves from federal protection was unconstitutional and that wolves would be annihilated again. Overall, the age-old wolf wars continue to rage. But in this new chapter, wolf wars are not waged between wolves and humans- instead, they are waged between different groups of humans with opposing views (the rural folks populating the cattle country versus the urban types who vow to protect wild animals at all costs). So stay tuned.
Case Discussion Questions :
ON ETHICS: Do ranchers have any CSR to help preserve the wolves by tolerating livestock losses? Or does their CSR lie in their efforts to get rid of the wolves from their private property? (By doing that, they also generate the social benefits of bringing down the costs on beef, lamb, milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream for all of us.)

Question 15

Do you think "green practices" should be voluntary or mandatory for businesses? Explain your answer.

Question 16

ON ETHICS: In a landmark case in 1919, Dodge v. Ford, the Michigan State Supreme Court determined whether or not Henry Ford could withhold dividends from the Dodge brothers (and other shareholders of the Ford Motor Company) to engage in what today would be called CSR activities. With a resounding "No," the court opined that "A business organization is organized and carried on primarily for the profits of the stockholders." If the court in your country were to decide on this case this year (or in 2019), what do you think would be the likely outcome?

Question 17

ON ETHICS: In your opinion, do you think an MNE should remain politically neutral and adopt practices and laws of the host country?

Question 18

China has been a recipient of considerable investment recently. However, little research has been conducted by the green technology company for which you work concerning the exact nature of socially responsible technology investment. Since your firm's goal is to operate in China in a way that promotes social responsibility, you must identify the sectors of green technology that receive the most investment. Develop a report that responds to this issue and adds to the development of your company's strategy in China. Based on your analysis, be sure to include possible new products that could be introduced in the Chinese market.

Question 19

As a manager, what are some of the considerations you would take into account before adopting any CSR-related policy?

Question 20

How do you define global sustainability?

Question 21

How does the concept of "picking your battles carefully" apply to CSR?

Question 22

Wolves are the planet's most widespread land-based large mammals. They used to be humans' most direct competitors for meat. As a result, the Big Bad Wolf occupied a center stage in our psyche as a demon character in many cultures. Humans fought wolves for ages. Relentlessly shot, poisoned, and trapped, wolves were completely defeated in these old wolf wars. In Yellowstone National Park the last gray wolf was killed in 1926. In the continental United States (except northern Minnesota), the gray wolf was completely exterminated by 1950.
However, winning the wolf wars made (some) humans feel guilty. In 1995 and 1996, the US Fish and Wild Life Service deliberately reintroduced 66 wolves captured in Canada into the wild by releasing them into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho's wilderness. By 2009, more than 1,600 wolves populated the northern Rocky Mountain states (primarily Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), and smaller packs penetrated northeastern Washington (state) and Colorado. "The West is getting wilder by the hour," declared National
Geographic. Wildlife enthusiasts and tourists were elated. In Yellowstone, thousands of tourists came to watch wolves every year, adding millions of dollars to the local economy. The revival of the gray wolves was viewed one of the most resounding victories of the Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973. In 2008, gray wolves in Wyoming were declared no longer endangered by the Department of the Interior. In 2009, gray wolves in Montana and Idaho started to enjoy such a status. Finally, in 2011, gray wolves in eight states across the West and upper Great Lakes were delisted.
Will humans and wolves live happily ever after? Not likely! "Packs are back," wrote National Geographic, "Westerners are glad, scared, and howling mad." Other than the group who are glad, a lot of people are scared. Small children, cats, and dogs are no longer safe in wolf-infested areas. A pleasant walk in the woods may result in unpleasant encounters. But two groups are howling mad. First, hunters complain that too many elk have become wolf food. In a region struggling with economic hardship such as lumber mill closures, wolves are direct competitors for meat to feed the family. In some places, "Howdy?" is replaced by "Get your elk yet?" Some folks openly talk about taking the matter into their own hands by shooting the wolves as their forefathers did. A popular bumper sticker sports a crossed-out wolf with the caption "Smoke a Pack a Day."
The second group that opposes the reappearance of gray wolves is ranchers who raise livestock such as cattle and sheep for a living. Wolves literally eat into the thin profits of ranchers and jack up the price of beef, lamb, milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream that all of us have to pay. A pack of wolves (generally about 3 to 10) typically kills a (wild) elk or a cattle calf every two to three days. In a single night, a pack of three adult wolves and five pups killed 122 sheep on a ranch in Montana, consuming little to no meat- the adults were probably teaching the pups how to kill. Wyoming and Montana compensate ranchers for livestock loss to wolves (for example, about $600 a calf) if ranchers can prove that such losses are due to wolf kills. The trouble is that if ranchers do not find and document a carcass right away, scavengers such as grizzly bears may drag off or shred all the evidence. For every wolf kill that is compensated, several more are uncompensated. In addition, surviving cattle harassed by wolves over one season can lose 30 to 50 pounds each. Further, livestock with injuries scratched by unsuccessful wolf chases or with infections from wounds are not marketable, and ranchers have to eat such losses. Finally, stress results in a lot of livestock miscarriages.
Some ranchers are aware of their CSR. One was quoted as saying: "We have to realize that the general US population wants wolves. That population is also our customers for beef. It's not a good idea to tell your customers they don't know what they're doing." But, the other side of the debate argues: "Isn't the thinking that the CSR of cattle ranchers is to tolerate their livestock being wolf feed going too far?"
Frustrated ranchers cannot defend their private property by shooting wolves. Instead, they vote politicians on a pro-wolf platform out of office and fill state legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with candidates who vow to make wolves go away. After gray wolves were delisted from the (federal) engendered species list in Wyoming, the state government immediately labeled them varmints (or pests), allowing virtually unlimited shooting and trapping. A resulting lawsuit filed by environmental and animal-protection groups forced the Department of the Interior to temporarily put wolves back on the endangered list. Taking the lesson, Montana and Idaho, after wolves were delisted in their states, labeled them game animals and set quotas for the first legal wolf hunts in their history-75 in Montana and 220 in Idaho. In addition, Idaho started shooting wolves from helicopters to kill predators that biologists say are harming elk herds. In response, angry environmentalists went back to court again, arguing that the legislative removal of wolves from federal protection was unconstitutional and that wolves would be annihilated again. Overall, the age-old wolf wars continue to rage. But in this new chapter, wolf wars are not waged between wolves and humans- instead, they are waged between different groups of humans with opposing views (the rural folks populating the cattle country versus the urban types who vow to protect wild animals at all costs). So stay tuned.
Case Discussion Questions :
ON ETHICS: If ranchers cannot make a living, they are likely to sell property to developers, who will facilitate more urban sprawl. Urban land almost never goes back to agricultural or ranch use. Should CSR advocates help ranchers make a living, or should they push ranchers to accept more losses from wolf predation?

Question 23

Using PengAtlas Map 4.3, in your opinion, from a labor perspective, which country would present the biggest CSR challenge if you had operations in that country?