CSR Assignment 2

Yunhan Wang

179531347

Stephen Pavelin

MN20445
Section 3: Response

1. Amazon has done nothing to address its issue of an oppressive work culture. At its

warehouses specifically, it has been likened to a “prison”, as workers are given productivity

targets that are unfeasible and unreasonable. It was found that workers had to urinate into bottles,

for fear of taking too much idle time to go all the way to the washroom. Furthermore, it was

found that some were forced to work 55 hours in a week which is beyond a normal work week,

and that some were so overworked that they would fall asleep standing up (Bonazzo, J., 2018).

As well, Amazon tracks the actions of each individual worker, issuing warnings to those who

don’t meet goals or take too much “idle time”, furthering the atmosphere of oppression. In a

survey of Amazon employees conducted by the British worker’s rights group Organise, it was

found that 74% said that they avoided going to the toilet while at work, and only 18.5% said that

they would apply for a job at Amazon again, if they could (Organise, 2018). A normally

functioning employee force should not fear having to go to the washroom, and the reluctance for

employees to re-sign if they could shows a mentally depleted and resentful workforce, who are

probably working because they have little other choice. Clearly, Amazon’s mistreatment of its

workers is an area of major concern, and more significantly, is deeply engrained into the

company’s culture, and thus it has failed all criteria set out in part 2 to address. It is clear that

Amazon does not care about operating in a socially responsible way that treats its employees

with respect for their well-being. This is not at all a surprise, considering the company’s

competitive pricing and volume. Unfortunately, treatment of low-skilled workers such as this

seems to be the status quo across the industry. Sports Direct, the UK’s largest sports retailer, has

faced similar issues with overworking its workers (Goodley, S., 2015).
2. Amazon has not addressed environmental issues regarding its heavy usage and promotion of

rush shipping. On the contrary, it uses this shipping as a point of difference to other companies,

as one of the only online retailers offering free and plentiful one or two-day shipping. Amazon

indirectly encourages consumers to use its rush shipping by setting it at the same price as the

traditional shipping option (free), and making no distinction to the consumer that one option is

more environmentally harmful than the other. Without awareness of the environmental

ramifications, what consumer would take the slower option? In this respect, Amazon has failed

the criteria set out in part 2, which is that the company should create a distinction between

traditional and rush shipping, so that consumers can be incentivized to use the more

environmentally beneficial method. However, a silver lining exists to this issue. Amazon has

been developing a drone delivery program for ultra-fast shipping to be rolled out in the next

couple years around the world. All factors considered, a study done in California found that

delivery through drones emits over 50% less greenhouse gasses than traditional delivery done

through trucks (Samaras, C. et al., 2018). Eventually, if Amazon can provide and maintain a

large enough fleet, it will be a better solution to the environmental concerns than even traditional

shipping.

3. In 2015, Amazon banned and removed the sale of products from Apple TV and Google

Chromecast, two direct competitors to Amazon’s own video service. The company cited the

reason that this was done was to prevent “customer confusion”, because Apple TV and Google

Chromecast were incompatible with its streaming service (Streitfeld, D. et al, 2015). However,

this excuse was inconsistent, as countless other streaming products that were not compatible

were left on the marketplace, and the two products banned were from Amazon’s biggest
competitors. Rather, it seemed that Amazon was attempting to drive down competition. This

seem to be confirmed when in 2017, Apple TV was allowed back on the Amazon marketplace

after partnering with Amazon’s own streaming service, while Chromecast is still banned (Perez,

S., 2017). To make matters worse, Amazon allows vendors to sell counterfeit Chromecasts on

their marketplace, ultimately confusing and letting down the consumer, one of Amazon’s crucial

stakeholders. Thus, Amazon has failed in the criteria set out in part 2, which was to allow fair

competition by opening their marketplace to competing products. Instead, they are picking and

choosing, and only allowing products when it advantages them, which can be clearly seen in how

they handled Apple TV. However, Amazon is not the only major company dealing with anti-

competitive practices. Recently, Google was levied a $2.7 billion dollar fine for breaking EU

anti-trust laws by rigging search results to promote their own services (Statt, J., 2017). Thus,

Google and Amazon can be directly compared, as they are examples of dominant companies

abusing their ability to artificially drive down competition for their own gain. It can be seen that

large companies easily fall prey to unethical, anti-competitive behaviours).

Section 4: Recommendations

1. In its current state, Amazon’s work culture needs a major overhaul. To better meet its social

and ethical responsibilities, it should step back and reconsider its balance between maximum

output and worker well being, and these recommendations will aid it to do just that. Firstly,

Amazon should stop monitoring the individual actions of each of its workers and instead set a

team goal for all to work towards, so that workers do not feel the pressure to avoid necessary

breaks, such as for using the washroom. This will boost worker morale, and rather than heavy-

handedly force them to work as an individual, will motivate them to meet the goal in a team-
oriented environment. This hands responsibility back to the worker, and empowers them.

Secondly, more workers should be hired, to avoid pressuring current workers to work unhealthy

hours. Though this will incur an increased training and hiring cost, in doing so, employee

burnout can be better curbed and avoided. Finally, Amazon should stop punishing workers for

taking sick days, as forcing a sick worker to work is unproductive and ultimately damaging to

both the company and the worker themselves. By combining these three specific

recommendations, Amazon will achieve a much healthier work culture.

2. Though Amazon themselves will be implementing a solution to the rush shipping issue in the

future through the use of drones, a widespread application of this is at least years away. A

recommendation that can be implemented right away that is fully feasible and free of cost is to

make the consumer aware of the environmental differences in shipping options. Specifically,

upon entering the shipping choices, Amazon could provide an “environmentally friendly”

shipping option along with their other already established options. This new option would ship

the item in the most efficient manner. Though it is not a major distinction, it is a distinction

nonetheless, and will surely persuade those who are environmentally conscious to consider the

option, especially if it is related to a product not urgently needed. A more drastic

recommendation would be to add a small charge to the rush shipping options. By doing this,

Amazon would more persuasively dissuade customers who do not need their product urgently

from using the rush shipping option, and therefore lower emissions that come from shipping

them. However, the downside to this is that those who do have an urgent need (e.g medicine)

will need to pay a new fee, compared to the way it currently is, which is free.
3. When it comes to recommendations for the issue on anti-competitive practices, it should be

Amazon’s responsibility to maintain fair competition in its product markets, even if it may come

at the cost of a portion of its own market share. Thus, an obvious recommendation that should be

implemented is the removal of the ban on Chromecasts. This would be the optimal solution from

a CSR and consumer perspective, but it seems unlikely that it is something Amazon themselves

would like to implement, as they have not gotten into trouble from regulators yet of their

removal of certain products. However, a workaround recommendation for this issue is for

Amazon to look to partner with Google, and allow streaming services on Google’s devices, and

vice versa. In doing so, both companies stand to benefit, and the advantages are passed down to

the consumer, who would no longer have the hindrance of having one service not work on the

other’s products. The caveat to this solution, however, is that it does not fully address the CSR

issue regarding anti-competitive actions, since the reason for the reversal on the ban on Google

products would not be out of the desire for fair competition. Thus, if this recommendation was

implemented, the potential for similar behaviour to arise out of Amazon in the future for other

products they may consider threatening will still exist.

Reference List

Bonazzo, J., 2018. Report: Amazon Workers Have to Process 300 Packages an Hour and Pee in

Bottles [Online]. Observer. Available from: http://observer.com/2018/04/amazon-britain-

harsh-working-conditions [Accessed 5 May 2018].

Goodley, S., 2015. A day at 'the gulag': what it's like to work at Sports Direct's warehouse

[Online]. The Guardian. Available from:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/09/sports-direct-warehouse-work-

conditions [Accessed 5 May 2018].

Organise, 2018. Amazon: What’s it like where you work? [Online]. Organise. Available

from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a3af3e22aeba594ad56d8cb/t/5ad098b3562f

a7b8c90d5e1b/1523620020369/Amazon+Warehouse+Staff+Survey+Results.pdf

[Accessed 5 May 2018].

Perez, S., 2017. The Apple TV is back on Amazon [Online]. TechCrunch. Available

from: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/26/the-apple-tv-is-back-on-amazon/ [Accessed 5

May 2018].

Samaras, C. et al., 2018. Delivering packages with drones might be good for the environment

[Online]. The Conversation. Available from: https://theconversation.com/delivering-

packages-with-drones-might-be-good-for-the-environment-90997 [Accessed 5 May

2018].

Statt, J., 2017. Google appeals record €2.4 billion antitrust fine over manipulated search results

[Online]. The Verge. Available

 from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/11/16291482/google-alphabet-eu-fine-antitrust-

appeal [Accessed 5 May 2018].

Streitfeld, D. et al, 2015. Amazon to Stop Selling Apple TV and Chromecast [Online]. The New

York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/business/amazon-to-

stop-selling-apple-tv-and-chromecast.html?_r=0 [Accessed 5 May 2018].