Upload
dinhtruc
View
224
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT BY STAKEHOLDERS
OF JOLLIBEE-PHILIPPINES
Joan C. Reyes, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Holy Angel University
Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines
[email protected] , [email protected]
Abstract
This study on social responsibility performance audit of Jollibee-Philippines aims to
audit the social responsibility performance of Jollibee in terms of Economic, Legal,
Ethical and Philanthropic social responsibilities as perceived by employees and
customers. The non-parametric way of determining the differences among the branches
and between employees and customers on the responses of respondents on the social
responsibility performance of Jollibee was employed through the use of statistical tools:
namely: Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney. The stakeholder-respondents gave a rating
of “accommodative” to Jollibee as the over-all level of social responsibility performance.
It was further revealed that respondents of the four (4) Jollibee branches have different
perceptions on the social responsibility performance of Jollibee, specifically the
economic responsibility. Perceptions of employees and customers were also different on
social responsibility performance of Jollibee particularly in the levels of legal and ethical
responsibilities. Both employees and customers may have their respective concerns and
issues at hand which made their responses different. Jollibee must be proactive in
fulfilling its responsibilities to its stakeholders by adopting a stakeholder perspective in
social responsibility and including the feedback from relevant stakeholders in the
formulation of the firm’s strategy and implementation.
Keywords: Social responsibility, economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic and social
audit
Businesses today face increasingly
complex and often competing, motive and
incentives in their decision-making.
Corporations should have more than one
purpose. They also owe something to their
workers and the communities in which they
operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice
some profit for the sake of making things better
for their employees and communities. In the
period of intense global competition and
increasing media scrutiny, consumer activism
and government regulation, all types of
organizations need to be prudent at achieving
these opportunities. Sustaining the demands of
social responsibility (Thorne, Ferrell and Ferrell,
2008) is a never-ending process of continuous
improvement that requires leadership from top
management, buy-in from employees, and good
relationships across the community, industry,
market and government. Companies must
properly plan, allocate and use of resources to
satisfy the demands placed on them by investors,
employees, customers, business partners, the
government, the community and others.
It is about time that businesses today
must look beyond self-interest and recognize that
they belong to society that expects responsible
involvement. Thus, if any group, society or
institution is to function, there must be an elusive
interaction between rights and responsibilities
for the common good. The adage “no man is an
island” describes the relational and integrative
nature of society. Although businesses are not
2
human beings, they plan, develop goals, allocate
resources, and act and behave purposefully.
Thus, society grants them both benefits and
responsibilities.
In the book Social Responsibility and
Business by Thorne, Ferrel and Ferrell (2011),
social responsibility is defined as” the adoption
by a business of a strategic focus for fulfilling
the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic
responsibilities expected of it by its
stakeholders.” All types of businesses can
implement social responsibility initiatives to
further their relationships with their customers,
their employees and the community at large.
Although the efforts of large corporations
usually receive the most attention, the actions of
small businesses may have a greater impact on
local communities. The definition of social
responsibility involves the extent to which a firm
embraces the social responsibility philosophy
and follows through with the implementation of
initiatives. Social responsibility must be fully
valued and championed by top managers and
given the same planning time, priority and
management attention as is given to any other
company initiative.
Thorne, Ferrell and Ferrell (2011)
further discussed that many people believe that
businesses should accept and abide by four types
of responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic. Companies have a responsibility
to be economically viable so that they can
provide a return on investment for their owners,
create jobs for the community and contribute
goods and services to the economy. They are
also expected to obey laws and regulations that
specify what is responsible business conduct.
Business ethics refers to the principles and
standards that guide behavior in the world
business. Philanthropic activities promote
human welfare or goodwill.
Most organizations have a number of
constituents, who in turn have other stakeholders
to consider. These constituents have a stake in,
or claim on, some aspect of a company’s
products, operations, markets, industry and
outcomes. Because they have a stake or claim
in some aspects of a company’s products,
operations, markets, industry or outcomes, these
groups not only are influenced by business, but
they also have the ability to affect business.
In the case of food industry is facing the
complex task of balancing its stakeholders’
expectations such as government, parents,
children and corporate concerns. These
stakeholders are increasingly expressing
opinions that have an effect on the industry’s
time, operations, member’s relationships and
products. Today, many organizations are
learning to anticipate such issues and to address
them in their plans and actions long before they
become the subject of media stories or negative
attention.
According to Thorne, Ferrell and Ferrell
(2011), there are two (2) types of stakeholders;
as quoted “(1) Primary stakeholders are those
whose continued association is absolutely
necessary for a firm’s survival such as
employees, customers, investors, shareholders,
governments and communities; and (2)
Secondary stakeholders do not typically engage
in transactions with a company and, thus, are not
essential for its survival such as media, trade
associations and special-interest groups.”
Both types of stakeholders involve
particular values and principles that composed of
acceptable or unacceptable behaviors in an
organization. It is important for managers to
recognize that primary groups may present more
day-to-day concerns, but secondary groups
cannot be ignored or given less consideration in
the ethical decision-making process.
Maignan, et al. (2005) disclosed that
generating data about stakeholders begin with
identifying the stakeholders that are relevant to
the firm. Relevant stakeholder communities
should be analyzed on the basis of the power
each enjoys as well as by the ties between them.
The firm should characterize the concerns about
the business’ conduct that each relevant
3
stakeholder group shares. This information can
be derived from formal research, including
surveys, focus groups, internet searches, or press
reviews. The company should evaluate its
impact on the issues that are important to the
various stakeholders it has identified. To
develop effective stakeholder dialogs,
management needs to appreciate how others
perceive the risks of a specific decision. A
multiple stakeholder perspective must take into
account communication content and
transparency when communicating with specific
stakeholders.
Managing stakeholder relationships
effectively requires careful attention to a firm’s
reputation and the effective handling of crisis
situations. Because a company’s reputation has
the power to attract or repel stakeholders, it can
be either an asset or a liability in developing and
implementing strategic plans and social
responsibility initiatives. Reputations take a
long time to build or change, and it is far more
important to monitor reputation than many
companies believe. Whereas a strong reputation
may take years to build, it can be destroyed
seemingly overnight if a company does not
handle crisis situations to the satisfaction of the
various stakeholders involved.
Corporate reputation, image and brands
are more important than ever and are among the
most critical aspects of sustaining relationships
with constituents, including investors, customers,
financial analysts, media and government
watchdogs. This is also the reason why this
research considered Jollibee stores in the
Philippines as the subject because of its
sustainable relationships with its stakeholders. It
takes Jollibee decades to build a great reputation
established by its founder, Mr. Tony Ciaktong
Tan, since 1975. Jollibee is also considered the
most popular choice among all Filipinos.
Although Jollibee does not control its reputation
in a direct sense, its actions, choices, behaviors
and consequences do influence the reputation
that exists in the perceptions of its stakeholders.
A company’s reputation is affected by every
contact with a stakeholder.
Jollibee started as an ice cream parlor in
1975. When it became Incorporation in 1978,
Jollibee entered the fast food business by
offering meals and hamburgers. In 1984,
Jollibee landed in the Top 500 Corporations in
the Philippines; and in 1987, it became part of
the country’s Top 100 Corporations. The first
fast food business in the Philippines to reach the
P1 Billion sales in 1989. To expand its capital
and be able to sustain its growth in the
Philippines and abroad, Jollibee listed in the
Philippine Stock Exchange in 1993.
As an evidence of its concern towards
its employees, numerous awards were granted to
Jollibee such as “the #1 Employer in the
Philippines cited by the Far Eastern Economic
Review; ranked 3rd
among Asias’ Most Admired
Companies recognized by the Asian Wall Street
Journal, and Hewitt Associates; acknowledged as
the Global Growth Company by the World
Economic Forum; ranked #16 among Asia’s’
Best Employers and the only company in the list,
and, cited as No. 1 in Overall Leadership among
the top 10 Philippine companies doing business
in Asia” (Jollibee Success Story-
www.jollibee.com.ph).
As the country's leading fast food chain,
Jollibee has grown exponentially on all aspects
of operation. Jollibee has more than six hundred
(600) and fifty (50) stores in the Philippines and
abroad, respectively. At present, Jollibee has
twenty-six (26) stores in the United States of
America. It also runs its stores in Brunei, Hong
Kong, Saudi Arabia & Vietnam. Jollibee –
Philippines further acquires the following fast
food chains; namely: Greenwich Pizza,
Delifrance, Chowking, Tokyo-Tokyo, Teriyaki
Boy and now Mang Inasal.
As indicated in the website of Jollibee,
“Its rapid growth is due to its superior menu line-
up, creative marketing programs, and efficient
manufacturing and logistics facilities. It is made
4
possible by well-trained teams that work in a
culture of integrity and humility, fun and family-
like. Filipinos always form long lines to the
store. It is more than home for them. It is a
stronghold of heritage and monument of Filipino
victory.”
Jollibee Food Corporation is now active
in its advocacy of helping the community with
the establishment of Jollibee Foundation in
December 2004. In the same website, Jollibee
expressed “its commitment to its communities
through socio-civic projects like Sa Aklat
Sisikat, a reading program; Nurture the Future, a
community-based feeding program; the Values
Program of the Department of Education; and
Habitat for Humanity.”
Jollibee Food Corporation belongs to
food industry that experience balancing the
stakeholders’ expectations. Its mission
statement: “to serve great tasting food to their
customers and bring the joy of eating to
everyone” further explained that Jollibee wants
to serve the superior taste of their food to their
customer and let them feel that their money is
worth making them satisfy with the service and
place they provided. Jollibee’s vision by 2020
is to have over 4,000 stores word wide, the best
leading quick service restaurant and leading fast
food chain providing food, service and
cleanliness excellence in every encounter.
Due to success of Jollibee business in
Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines, it is
imperative to audit the social responsibility of
Jollibee Angeles group of stores in terms of
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic
responsibilities.
According to Thorne, Ferrell and Ferrell
(2008), social audit is conducted to assess and
report a business’s performance in fulfilling the
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic social
responsibilities expected of it by its stakeholders.
It should be conducted on a periodic basis
instead of only when there are problems or
questions about a firm’s priorities and conduct.
It can be specific and focus one or two areas.
Auditing social responsibility could generate a
lot of benefits. As such, social responsibility
audit reports could be a useful management tool
to help companies identify and define their social
impacts and facilitate improvements in
concerning stakeholders’ issues.
The quick service restaurant sector is
the fastest growing industry in the Philippines.
Primarily everyone wants to have a convenient
life that the fast food industry could easily
resolve. Jollibee should understand and address
stakeholders’ expectations in addition to the
fundamental inputs of investors, employees and
suppliers. This approach recognizes other
stakeholders and explicitly acknowledges the
dialog that exists between a firm’s internal and
external environments.
This paper aimed to audit the social
responsibility performance of Jollibee stores.
Specifically, I would like to seek answers to the
following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of
respondents?
1.1. Address
1.2. Age
1.3. Gender
1.4. Position/Employment
2. What is the social audit on the social
responsibility performance of Jollibee?
3. What is the overall level of social
responsibility performance of Jollibee
stores?
4. Are there significant differences on the
responses among respondents on social
responsibility performance of Jollibee?
5. What is the implication of this study to
improve the stakeholders’ orientation of
Jollibee?
The social responsibility model was
adapted from Charles J. Fombrun, “Three Pillars
of Corporate Citizenship,” in Corporate Global
Citizenship Edition, McGraw Hill (1997, pp27-
42). The framework was designed to understand
5
how businesses fulfill social expectations. It
further illustrates the concept that social
responsibility is a process. It begins with the
social responsibility philosophy, includes the
four levels of social responsibilities; to wit: (1)
economic is the obligation of the company to
make the business viable and sustainable; (2)
legal is the compliance of the company with
laws and regulations that specify what is
responsible business conduct ; (3) ethical refers
to principles and standards that guide behavior in
the world of business and, lastly, (4)
philanthropic promotes human welfare and
goodwill. Social responsibility is grounded in
effective and mutually beneficial relationships
with customers, employees, investors,
competitors, government, the community, and
others who have a stake in the company.
However, the present study limits its
stakeholder-respondents to employees and
customers in the audit of social responsibility
performance of Jollibee in Angeles City.
Companies are recognizing that these
constituents both affect and are affected by their
actions. Therefore, it is imperative for Jollibee
to determine its stakeholders’ orientation and
improve through the results of this study.
The social responsibility performance
audit of Jollibee among the four (4) branches and
between employees and customers were
determined and tested using the null hypothesis,
stated as follows: There are no significant
differences on the responses among respondents
on social responsibility performance of Jollibee
stores.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
This study was undertaken for the
benefit of Jollibee stores. The results of this
study can be used as a source of information on
how to further improve the company’s
stakeholders’ orientation.
This research is undertaken in four (4)
stores located in Nepo Mall, Jenra Mall, Jumbo
Jenra – Angeles, and Angeles Rotonda, all
owned by Tan Angeles Group of Jollibee. The
respondents were limited to primary stakeholders
such as employees and customers.
Stakeholders
Employees
Customers
Social Responsibility As strategic philosophy
Improved stakeholders’ Orientation
Types of Responsibility
Economic
Legal
Ethical
Philanthropic
6
Method
Research Design
The study made used of descriptive
method. Descriptive research design aims to
find out what prevails in the present conditions
or relationships, held opinions and beliefs,
processes and effects, and developing trends.
As a descriptive research, this study
aimed to describe and audit the social
responsibility performance of Jollibee stores in
terms of economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic social responsibilities.
Participants
The target population of this study are
the employees and customers of Jollibee Angeles
group of stores which composed of Nepo Mall,
Jenra Mall, Jumbo Jenra – Angeles, and Angeles
Rotonda. These employees and customers of
Jollibee Angeles group of stores were requested
and consented to be part of the study.
Actual employees-respondent who have
regular status were identified such as eight (8) in
Rotonda, four (4) in Nepo Mall, seven (7) in
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and six (6) in Jenra Mall.
All regular employees were able to accomplish
the survey questionnaire. The manner of
selection of the respondents-employees is
presented using non-probability sampling,
specifically, purposive sampling was applied in
selecting the respondents in four (4) Jollibee
Angeles group of stores. Edralin (2000) defined
purposive sampling as the selection of samples
based on predetermined set of criteria.
Further, this study made used of
convenience sampling which according to
Edralin (2000) allows the researcher to gather
data from respondents who are conveniently
available to provide the necessary information.
This design is used to get the information fast.
In determining the sample size of
customers, the study utilized the Cochran’s
formula (1977):
N = N
_________
1 + N(e)2
Where N = population and e = sampling error
(0.05)
i.e. Customers in Nepo Mall (n) = 1,100/1+
{1,100 (0.05)2} = 293
Branch Ave # of Customers/mo. Sample Size
Rotonda 1,500 316
Nepo Mall 1,100 293
Jumbo Jenra Angeles 1,280 305
Jenra Mall 700 255
Total 4580 customers/month 1,169 respondents
The average number of customers was based on
the month-to-date sales report of Jollibee
Angeles stores as of August 29, 2012.
Sources of Data
The primary data were the information
gathered from employees and customers of
Jollibee Angeles group of stores as well as the
interview and observation conducted. On the
other hand, the secondary data were taken from
journals, books and internet sources.
Research Instruments
The survey questionnaire was used
which composed of questions that were based on
7
types of social responsibility; namely: economic,
legal, ethical and philanthropic.
The standard questionnaire was lifted
from the book entitled Social Responsibility and
Business by Thorne, et al. (2011). The
questions were composed of the following: (Q1)
Are salary, benefits and promotions perceived to
be fair and equitable to all employees?, (Q2)
Does the company adhere to fair pricing and
maintain acceptable product quality?, (3) Does
the community benefit from the economic
impact of the company?, (4) Does the
organization train employees on effective legal
compliance?, (5) Does the company participate
in deceptive or unfair marketing activities?, (6)
Are the legal rights of all community
stakeholders considered?, (7) Have the
company’s ethical standards been communicated
to its stakeholders? (8) Are customers’ rights and
concerns about products considered in all
decisions?, (9) Are the ethical standards of the
company consistent with those of the
community?, (10) Does the organization
encourage and enable employees to contribute to
the community? (11) Does the company seek to
share in philanthropic activities important to
customers? (12) Does the company invest in the
community through grants, fund raising and
community service?
The survey questionnaires for the
employees were administered during their
monthly meeting held on September 13, 2012
which was approved and consented by the
Jollibee-Angeles group area manager. On the
other hand, the survey questionnaires for the
customers were distributed during the peak days;
to wit: Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Only
customers who understood the Corporate Social
Responsibility and willing to be interviewed
were given a copy. Questions in the survey
which could not be answered by customers were
discarded in order to avoid misinterpretation of
their perceptions on the social responsibility of
Jollibee; the items were as follows: (Q1)are
salary, benefits and promotions perceived to be
fair and equitable to all employees?; (Q4) Does
the organization train employees on effective
legal compliance?; (Q7) Have the company’s
ethical standards been communicated to
employees?; (Q9) Are the ethical standard of the
company consistent with those of the
community?; (Q10) Does the organization
encourage and enable employees to contribute to
the community?; and (Q12) Does the company
invest in the community through grants, fund
raising and community service?
Procedures
The following statistics were used for
the audit of social responsibility performance of
Jollibee stores; to wit:
The Frequency and Percentage
Distribution was used to show
the actual distribution of
responses per demographic
item.
The mean rating was also used
to show the general rating
given by the respondents per
dimension. The reactive-
defensive-accommodative-
proactive scale was used to
audit the real practice and
would allow the organization
to see its strengths and
weaknesses within each
stakeholder relationship. The
response categories for the
means were determined based
on the following ranges; to wit:
Scale Value Verbal Interpretation Range of Weighted Means
4 Proactive 3.55 – 4.00
3 Accommodative 2.55 - 3.54
2 Defensive 1.55 – 2.54
8
1 Reactive 1.00 – 1.54
The descriptions of response category to audit
the social responsibility performance were as
follows:
Proactive - this approach not
only accepts but also
anticipates stakeholder
interests. A company sincerely
aligns legitimate stakeholder
views with its responsibilities
and will do more than is
required to meet them.
Accommodative - a company
attempts to satisfy stakeholder
demands by doing all that is
required and may be seen as
progressive because it is
obviously open to the
expansion of business
relationships.
Defensive - an organization
with a defensive strategy
acknowledges reluctantly and
partially the responsibility
issues that may be raised by its
stakeholders. The firm fulfills
basic obligations and
demonstrates the minimal
responsibility.
Reactive – this approach
involves denying responsibility
and doing less than is required.
This approach can be
characterized as “fighting it all
the way.”
Lastly, the non-parametric way of
determining the differences among the
branches and between employees and
customers on the responses of
respondents on the social responsibility
performance of Jollibee Angeles group
of stores was employed through the use
of statistical tools: namely: Kruskal
Wallis and Mann-Whitney.
Results and Discussion
I. Demographic Profile
1.1. Employees
1.1.a. Address
Table 1 shows the frequency
distribution of employees in terms of their
addresses. Majority of employee- respondents of
Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra
Angeles and Jenra Mall are residents of Angeles
City. The rests of the respondents’ addresses are
outside Angeles City.
Table 1. Address of Employees
Address Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
Angeles
City
4 51.00 1 25.00 4 57.00 4 67.00
City of
San
Fernando
2 24.00 3 75.00 1 14.00 2 33.00
Mabalacat 2 25.00 0 0.00 2 29.00 0 0.00
Total 8 100.00 4 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00
9
1.1.b. Age
Table 2 shows the age of the employees
which majority of employee-respondents of
Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra
Angeles and Jenra Mall are 26-30 years old.
The rests of respondents belong to 21-25 and 36-
40 years of age.
Table 2. Age of Employees
Age Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
21-25 3 38.00 2 50.00 1 14.00 2 33.00
26-30 4 50.00 1 25.00 5 72.00 3 50.00
31-35 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 17.00
36-40 1 12.00 1 25.00 1 14.00 0 0.00
41-45 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
46-50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
51-
above
0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 8 100.00 4 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00
1.1.c. Gender
Table 3 shows the gender of employee-
respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall which
majority of employees who have regular status
are female.
Table 3. Gender of Employees
Gender Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
Male 3 38.00 1 25.00 3 43.00 3 50.00
Female 5 62.00 3 75.00 4 57.00 3 50.00
Total 8 100.00 4 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00
1.1.d. Position
Table 4 shows the positions of employee-
respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall which
most of regular employees assumed managerial
positions.
Table 4. Position of Employees
Position Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
10
F % F % F % F %
Manager 1 12.00 1 25.00 2 29.00 4 66.00
Assistant
Manager
1 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Marketing In
Charge
0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Shift Manager 3 40.00 0 0.00 2 29.00 1 17.00
Dining
Manager
1 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Counter/
Service
Manager
0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Restaurant
Manager
1 12.00 1 25.00 2 29.00 0 0.00
Service Quality
Manager
1 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 17.00
Regular Crew 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 13.00 0 0.00
Total 8 100.00 4 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00
1.1.e. Number of Years in Jollibee
Table 5 shows the number of years of
employee-respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda,
Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra
Mall. Three (3) employees in Rotonda have
been in Jollibee for less than a year and two (2)
each have been in Jollibee for 1-3 and 7-9 years;
majority of employees in Nepo Mall have been
in Jollibee for 1-3 years; three (3) employees in
Jumbo-Jenra have been in Jollibee for less than a
year and two (2) have been in Jollibee for 10
years and above; and majority of employees in
Jenra Mall have been in Jollibee for less than a
year and 7-9 years. This signifies that majority of
employees in Rotonda and Jenra Mall branches
are newly hired while there are employees in
Nepo Mall and Jenra-Jumbo Angeles who have
been working in Jollibee for more than ten (10)
years.
Table 5. Number of Years of Employees in Jollibee
# of Years Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
Less than a
year
3 40.00 1 25.00 3 44.00 2 32.00
1-3 years 2 24.00 2 50.00 1 14.00 1 17.00
4-6 years 1 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 17.00
7-9 years 2 24.00 0 0.00 1 14.00 2 34.00
10 years
above
0 0.00 1 25.00 2 28.00 0 0.00
Total 8 100.00 4 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00
10
1.2. Demographic Profile – Customers
1.2.a. Address
Table 6 shows the addresses of
customer-respondents of Jollibee. Majority of
customers of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall branches
are residents of Angeles City; followed by City
of San Fernando and Mabalacat.
Table 6. Address of Customers
Address Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
Angeles City 186 58.86 158 53.92 198 64.92 135 52.94
City of San
Fernando
39 12.34 35 11.95 12 3.93 43 16.86
Mabalacat 36 11.39 41 13.99 39 12.79 15 5.88
Arayat 6 1.90 4 1.37 6 1.97 6 2.35
Porac 15 4.75 15 5.12 30 9.84 40 15.69
Guagua 6 1.90 12 4.09 0 0.00 2 0.78
Tarlac 9 2.85 7 2.39 9 2.95 5 1.96
Magalang 11 3.48 11 3.75 5 1.64 3 1.18
Mexico 4 1.27 5 1.71 3 0.98 6 2.35
Bacolor 1 0.32 0 0.00 1 0.33 0 0.00
Sta. Ana 3 0.95 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00
Masantol 0 0.00 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00
Bataan 0 0.00 1 0.34 1 0.33 0 0.00
Aurora 0 0.00 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00
Bulacan 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.33 0 0.00
Zambales 0 0.00 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 316 100.00 293 100.00 305 100.00 255 100.00
1.2.b. Age
Table 7 shows the age of customer-
respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall which
majority are 21-25 years of age.
Table 7. Age of Customers
Age Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
21-25 140 44.30 68 23.00 167 54.75 90 35.29
26-30 79 25.00 44 15.00 37 12.13 41 16.08
31-35 40 12.66 46 16.00 28 9.18 32 12.55
36-40 23 7.28 40 14.00 21 6.89 32 12.55
41-45 14 4.43 42 14.00 15 4.92 28 10.98
46-50 14 4.43 31 11.00 15 4.92 18 7.06
51-above 6 1.90 22 8.00 22 7.21 14 5.49
12
Total 316 100.00 293 100.00 305 100.00 255 100.00
1.2.c. Gender
Table 8 shows the gender of customer-
respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall which
majority of customers are female.
Table 8. Gender of Customers
Gender Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall
F % F % F % F %
Male 143 45.25 112 38.23 138 45.00 102 40.00
Female 173 54.75 181 61.77 167 55.00 153 60.00
Total 316 100.00 293 100.00 305 100.00 255 100.00
1.2.d. Employment
Table 9 shows the status of employment
of customer-respondents of Jollibee in Rotonda,
Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall
which most of the customers are employed. This
signifies that only employed customers can
afford to eat at Jollibee.
Table 9. Status of Employment of Customers
Status of
Employment
Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra JenraMall
F % F % F % F %
Employed 290 91.77 150 51.19 172 56.39 185 72.55
Unemployed 26 8.23 143 48.81 133 43.61 70 27.45
Total 316 100.00 293 100.00 305 100.00 255 100.00
1. Social Responsibility Performance Audit
2.1. Employees
2.1.a. Economic
Table 10 shows the economic
performance audit of employees of Jollibee in
Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and
Jenra Mall which employees’ gave an overall
rating of “accommodative” to items “the salary,
benefits and promotions are perceived to be fair
and equitable to all employees” and “the
community benefits from the economic impact
of the company” with descriptive ratings of
3.42. and 3.06, respectively. The employees
perceived that Jollibee is doing all that is
required to satisfy the economic demands of its
employees and community.
On the other hand, “the company
adheres to fair pricing and maintains acceptable
product quality” was rated “proactive (3.67)
which employees believed that Jollibee
anticipates the interests of its stakeholders by
offering affordable and quality products and will
do more than is required to meet them.
13
Table 10. Economic Audit of Employees
Economi
c
Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR D
R
Q1 2.86 A 3.25 A 3.14 A 3 A 3.06 A
Q2 3.38 A 3.75 P 3.71 P 3.83 P 3.67 P
Q3 3.25 A 3.5 A 3.43 A 3.5 A 3.42 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.1.b. Legal
Table 11 shows the legal performance audit of
employees of Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall,
Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and Jenra Mall which
employees’ overall rating in the item “the
orgnization trains employees on effective legal
compliance” was “proactive” (3.60); the item
“the company participates in deceptive or unfair
marketing activities” was rated “defensive”
(2.12) and the item “the legal rights of all
stakeholders are considered” was rated
“accommodative” (3.48).
In terms of “the organization trains
employees on effective legal compliance”, the
employees perceived that Jollibee anticipates the
need of its employees for a training program on
legal requirements and compliance. For the
variable “participating in deceptive or unfair
marketing activities”, the employees perceived
that Jollibee is fighting this practice as evidenced
by defensive rating of the employees. And
finally, the employees perceived that Jollibee
attempts to satisfy all its stakeholders in
recognizing their legal rights.
Table 11. Legal Audit of Employees
Legal Rotonda NepoMall JumboJenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR
Q4 3.13 A 4 P 3.43 A 3.83 P 3.60 P
Q5 1.38 R 2.5 D 2.43 D 2.17 D 2.12 D
Q6 3 A 3.5 A 3.57 P 3.83 P 3.48 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.1.c. Ethical
Table 12 shows the ethical
performance audit of employees of Jollibee in
Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and
Jenra Mall which employees’ gave an overall
rating of “proactive” to all items; namely: “the
company’s ethical standards have been
communicated to its stakeholders” (3.70); “the
customers’ rights and concerns about products
are considered in all decisions” (3.69); and “the
ethical standards of the company are consistent
with those of the community” (3.61).
This signifies that Jollibee anticipates
its ethical responsibilities with its stakeholders
by setting and implementing the company’s
ethical standards, integrating the rights and
concerns of its customers and the community.
14
Table 12. Ethical Audit of Employees
Ethical Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR
Q7 3.38 A 4 P 3.57 P 3.83 P 3.70 P
Q8
3.38 A 4 P 3.71 P 3.67 P 3.69 P
Q9 3.13 A 3.75 P 3.71 P 3.83 P 3.61 P
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.1.d. Philanthropic
Table 13 shows the philanthropic
performance audit of employees of Jollibee in
Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and
Jenra Mall which employees gave an overall
rating of “accommodative” to all items;
namely: “the organization encourages and enable
employees to contribute to the community”
(3.53); “the company seeks to share in
philanthropic activities important to customers”
(3.38); and “the company invests in the
community through grants, fund raising and
community service” (3.32).
This signifies that Jollibee endeavors to
fulfill its stakeholders’ demands by doing all that
is required such as involving the employees and
customers in helping the community, and giving
money and other resources as a way of
demonstrating social responsibility.
Table 13. Philanthropic Audit of Employees
Philanthropic Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR D
R
Q10 3.13 A 3.75 P 3.57 P 3.67 P 3.53 A
Q11 2.88 A 3.75 P 3.57 P 3.33 A 3.38 A
Q12 3 A 3.5 A 3.43 A 3.33 A 3.32 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.2. Customers
2.2.a. Economic
Table 14 shows the economic
performance audit of customer-respondents of
Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra
Angeles and Jenra Mall which customers’ gave
an overall rating of “accommodative” to the
following items; namely: “the community
benefits from the economic impact of the
company” (3.16) and “the company adheres to
fair pricing and maintains acceptable product
quality” (3.11).
Jollibee attempts to fulfill its economic
responsibilities to its stakeholders such as
employees, customers and community. The
company does all that is required and may be
2
seen as progressive for opening an avenue to improve its relationships with its stakeholders.
Table 14. Economic Audit of Customers
Economic Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra JenraMall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR
Q2 3.41 A 3.18 A 2.88 A 3.15 A 3.16 A
Q3 3.22 A 3.11 A 2.97 A 3.15 A 3.11 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.2.b. Legal
Table 15 shows the legal performance
audit of customer-respondents of Jollibee in
Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra Angeles and
Jenra Mall which customers gave an overall
rating of “accommodative” to item “the legal
rights of all stakeholders are considered” (3.11).
And the item “the company participates in
deceptive or unfair marketing activities” was
rated “defensive” (2.54).
For the variable “participating in
deceptive or unfair marketing activities”, the
customers perceived that Jollibee is fighting this
practice as evidenced by their defensive rating
and “the employees perceived that Jollibee
attempts to satisfy all its stakeholders in
recognizing their legal rights.
Table 15. Legal Audit of Customers
Legal Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR D
R
Q5 2.23 D 2.45 D 2.94 A 2.52 D 2.54 D
Q6 3.11 A 3.07 A 3.14 A 3.13 A 3.11 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
2.2.c. Ethical
Table 16 shows the ethical
performance audit of customer-respondents of
Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra
Angeles and Jenra Mall which customers rated
the item “ customers’ rights and concerns about
products are considered in all decisions”
“accommodative” (3.19). The customers
perceived that Jollibee attempts to fulfill its
ethical responsibilities with its stakeholders by
doing all that is required.
Table 16. Ethical Audit of Customers
Ethical Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR
Q8 3.15 A 3.20 A 3.16 A 3.24 A 3.19 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
16
2.2.d. Philanthropic
Table 17 shows the philanthropic
performance audit of customer-respondents of
Jollibee in Rotonda, Nepo Mall, Jumbo-Jenra
Angeles and Jenra Mall which customers rated
the philanthropic performance of Jollibee
“accommodative”. This signifies that Jollibee
attempts to fulfill its philanthropic
responsibilities with its stakeholders by doing all
that is required such as involving the employees
and customers in helping the community, and
giving money and other resources as a way of
demonstrating social responsibility.
Table 17. Philanthropic Audit of Customers
Philanthropic Rotonda Nepo Mall Jumbo Jenra Jenra Mall Overall
Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR MR DR MR D
R
Q11 3.14 A 3.18 A 3.13 A 3.18 A 3.16 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
III. Over-all Level of Social Responsibility
Performance of Jollibee
Table 18 shows the over-all level of
social responsibility performance of Jollibee
which both employees and customers gave a
rating of “accommodative”. This indicates that
the firm attempts to fulfill its stakeholders’
concerns and implement its commitment to
social responsibility.
Table 18. Over-all Level of Social Responsibility Performance of Jollibee
Responsibility Employees Customers Overall Rating
MR DR MR DR MR DR
Economic 3.38 A 3.14 A 3.26 A
Legal 3.07 A 2.83 A 2.95 A
Ethical 3.67 P 3.19 A 3.43 A
Philanthropic 3.41 A 3.16 A 3.29 A
Note: MR-mean rating, DR-descriptive rating
IV. Test of Difference
4.1. Test of Difference among branches of
Jollibee group in Angeles City
Table 19 shows the test of difference in
the responses of respondents on social
responsibility performance of branches of
Jollibee – Angeles group in Rotonda, Nepo
Mall, Jenra-Jumbo Angeles and Jenra Mall .
The table further shows that there are
significant differences on variables: (Q2) the
company adheres to fair pricing and maintain
acceptable product quality (p=.000); (Q3) the
community benefits from the economic impact
of the company (p=.001); and (Q5) the company
participates in deceptive and unfair marketing
activities (p=.000).
If the level of significance is less than
0.05, the null hypothesis should be rejected,
however, if more than 0.05, the null hypothesis
should not be rejected.
It reveals that respondents of the four
(4) Jollibee branches have different perceptions
on the social responsibility performance of
2
Jollibee, specifically the economic responsibility.
The audit which was conducted by the
respondents are views of Jollibee on the basis of
how said stores have actually performed.
Table 19. Test of Difference among
branches of Jollibee – Angeles group
Variables P-
value
Hypothesis
Q2 .000 Reject the null
hypothesis
Q3 .001 Reject the null
hypothesis
Q5 .000 Reject the null
hypothesis
Q6 .236 Do not reject
the null
hypothesis
Q8 .617 Do not reject
the null
hypothesis
Q11 .870 Do not reject
the null
hypothesis
4.2. Test of Difference between Employees
and Customers
Table 20 shows the test of difference in
the responses between employees and customers
on social responsibility performance of
branches of Jollibee- Angeles group in Rotonda,
Nepo Mall, Jenra-Jumbo Angeles and Jenra Mall
.
The table further shows that there are
significant differences on the following
variables: (Q2) the company adheres to fair
pricing and maintains acceptable product quality
(p=.000); (Q5) the company participates in
deceptive or unfair marketing activities (p=.030);
(Q6) the legal rights of all community
stakeholders are considered (p=.024); and (Q8)
the customers’ rights and concerns about
products are considered in all decisions (p=.001).
If the level of significance is less than
0.05, the null hypothesis should be rejected,
however, if more than 0.05, the null hypothesis
should not be rejected.
The social responsibility performance
audit assesses the firm’s performance in
adopting a strategic focus for fulfilling the
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic
responsibilities expected of it by the
stakeholders. It reveals that employees and
customers have different perceptions on the
social responsibility performance of Jollibee
particularly on the levels of legal and ethical
responsibilities. Both employees and customers
may have their respective concerns and issues at
hand which made their responses different.
Table 20. Test of Difference between Employees and Customers
Variables Level of Difference Null Hypothesis
Q2 .000 Reject the null hypothesis
Q3 .066 Do not reject the null hypothesis
Q5 .030 Reject the null hypothesis
Q6 .024 Reject the null hypothesis
Q8 .001 Reject the null hypothesis
Q11 .319 Do not reject the null hypothesis
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, Jollibee
attempts to satisfy its stakeholders’ demands by
doing all that is required. The social
responsibility performance may be seen as
progressive in making efforts of addressing at its
stakeholders’ concerns and issues.
18
Recommendations
1. Jollibee must be proactive in
performing its social responsibility.
It must not only accept its
responsibilities to its stakeholders
but also learn to anticipate their
concerns and address them by
integrating in the firm’s plan of
actions.
2. Jollibee must implement a
stakeholder perspective in social
responsibility by including a
feedback from relevant
stakeholders in formulating its
strategy and implementation.
3. Jollibee must conduct a periodic
social audit which assesses and
reports the firm’s social
responsibility performance.
4. Finally, future researchers may
undertake similar research
employing other relevant
stakeholders like community and
government.
References
1. Fombrun, C. J. (1997). Three pillars of
corporate citizenship. Corporate Global
Citizenship Edition, McGraw Hill, 27-42.
2. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling
Techniques. John Wiley and Sons: New
York, 74-76.
3. Edralin, D. (2000). Business research:
Concepts and application, Manila: De La
Salle University Printing Press.
4. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L.
(2005). A stakeholder model for
implementing social responsibility in
marketing. European Journal of Marketing.
Emerald Insight.
5. Robbins, S. P. and Coulter, M. (2009).
Social responsibility. Management, 10th,
Pearson Education, Inc.
6. Thorne, D. M., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L.
(2008). Social responsibility and
stakeholders. Business and Society: A
Strategic Approach to Social Responsibility.
3rd, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
7. Thorne, D. M., Ferrell, O. C. and Ferrell, L.
(2011). Social Responsibility and Business.
4th, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
8. Profile of Jollibee. Retrieved from
www.jollibee.com.ph on November 3, 2010.