social responsibility performance audit

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

mailto:[email protected]

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


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,


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-



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-



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,


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


2.1.c. Ethical

Table 12 shows the ethical



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


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


2.1.d. Philanthropic

Table 13 shows the philanthropic



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


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


2.2. Customers

2.2.a. Economic

Table 14 shows the economic

performance audit of customer-respondents of


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


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


2.2.b. Legal

Table 15 shows the legal performance

audit of customer-respondents of Jollibee in


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


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


2.2.c. Ethical

Table 16 shows the ethical



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


Q8 3.15 A 3.20 A 3.16 A 3.24 A 3.19 A


16

2.2.d. Philanthropic

Table 17 shows the philanthropic



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


R

Q11 3.14 A 3.18 A 3.13 A 3.18 A 3.16 A


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


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


hypothesis


hypothesis

Q6 .236 Do not reject

the null

hypothesis


the null

hypothesis


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




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.

http://www.jollibee.com.ph/

social responsibility performance audit

Documents