Explain How Walmart's Actions Have Affected At Least 2 Stakeholder Groups.

Which of the 4 approaches to social responsibility did Walmart appear to take between 2006-2012? Give at least two reasons for your choice. (See Figure 3.3 Approaches to Social

Responsibility)

I believe the two approaches of social responsibility that Walmart would appear to take during 2006-2012 would be an obstructionist stance. The first reason why I choose an obstructionist stance is because Walmart seemed to be covering up the corruption which involved violating the US Foreign Corrupt Policies Act. Then, the New York Times also claimed that Walmart’s executives knew of the $24 million dollars that were involved with bribes made to government officials to gain business advantages. Another reason why Walmart would be considered to be an obstructionist stance is because Walmart seemed to be choosing to only meets it economic responsibilities so that their business can thrive.

2. Explain how Walmart’s actions have affected at least 2 different stakeholder groups. (See Figure

3.2 Social Responsibility in Business)

The reason why their actions would affect the American Red Cross is because they would receive as much money as they could have since the money Walmart received was for their business and receiving the money in a way that they were supposed to by violating the US Foreign Corrupt Policies Act. If the money instead has been given to the American Red Cross they could have used it for all the people who need blood in the world. Another stakeholder group that would be affected by the actions of Walmart would be Feeding America, which is the nation’s largest domestic hunger-relief organization, working to connect people with food and end hunger. Donors, staff, and volunteers all play an important role in our efforts to end hunger in the United States. So, with the money Walmart got from the bribes they could have used it for the Feeding America