Discuss About The CSR Of Aristocrat Vs CSR Of Fortescue Metal Group?
The aim of the paper is to compare and contrast between the vision, values, CSR and stakeholders’ mention in the corporate statements of two business organisations. The two business organisations chosen for the study are Aristocrat Limited, the international gaming company housed in Australia and Fortescue Metal Group Limited, the iron mining giant of Australia. The first section compares the vision statements of the two companies and analysis them on the basis of the SMART model. The second section delves and contrasts between the values of the two business organisations followed by a SMART analysis. The third section studies and compares the CSRs of Aristocrat and Fortescue leading to a SMART analysis. The final section compares between the stakeholders mentioned in the corporate statements of the two companies.
A vision or mission statement:
The vision statement of Aristocrat Limited is to cultivate world class gaming and gambling experience for the players from all round the world. The company is an Australian public limited company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and present all over the world. The company’s vision statement reveals it intention to provide the best gaming products to its geographically dispersed consumer bases. It aims to provide them with most enjoyable games and interaction processes which employ modern technology (aristocrat.com. 2017).
The vision statement of Fortescue Metal Group Limited is to be the most secure, cost effective and profitable iron ore producing company in the world. The company’s vision statement also states that it is striving to cultivate a unique organisational culture and human resource capable establishing and maintaining a safe environment(Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. 2017).
A comparison between the vision statements of the two companies reveal a number of differences which can be attributed to the respective industries to which they belong. Aristocrat Limited is an international gaming company and is a part of the entertainment industry. It is present in ninety countries, follows the policies set by two hundred and forty regulators and has three thousand global teams. Hence its vision revolves around providing superior gaming experience to its global base of gamers at affordable prices (?ovi?, Ali? and Mani? 2016).
Fortescue Group Limited is an iron ore mining company which is a part of the mining industry. Its vision in contrast with Aristocrat gives more priority to safety, cost effectiveness and profitability. This is due to the fact that mining involves hundreds of hazards which lead to accidents and fatalities of workers. Mining involves use of a huge manpower, advanced technology and resources which makes it extremely costly. Hence, Fortescue’s vision statement reflects its safety concerns while Aristocrats vision statement does not reflect it (Mahdevari, Shahriar and Esfahanipour 2014).
The second point of difference between the vision statements of the two companies is the risk factors. The Fortesue Metal Group is an iron mining firm hence; the risk factor is evident in its vision statement. The company aims to operate in a safer environment to minimise the accidents and fatalities. Compared to Fortescue, Aristocrat is a gaming company. So its vision statement does not have mention about risk factors (Burgherr and Hirschberg 2014).
SMART analysis of values:
A contrast between the vision statements of both Aristocrat and Fortescue are specific. The vision statement of Aristocrat speaks about its intention to provide the gamers with the international gaming experience. Compared to Aristocrat, the vision statement of Fortescue is more expansive because it covers safety, cost effectiveness and profitability aspects. Hence, it is more specific compared to the vision of Aristocrat (Tyulenev et al. 2016).
The vision of Aristocrat mentions provision of new games and gambling opportunities of international standards. The performance of the key aspects of Aristocrat’s business can be measured by comparing the amounts of revenue generation before and after introduction of certain games.
The vision of Fortescue Metal Group is vast and measuring the performance of the key elements like productivity is tougher compared to Aristocrat. In fact, the performance of Fortescue is not fully measurable and the profit does not reflect the performance accurately. This is because the losses like accidents at the mining sites due to heavy rainfall can be measured accurately (Blaikie et al. 2014). This analysis shows that the performance standards of Fortescue cannot be measured accurately owing to influence of external environmental factors like heavy rains and resultant loss of materials and human resources.
Aristocrat’s vision is more achievable compared to the vision of Fortescue. This is because the operations of Aristocrat involve minimum physical hazards compared to Fortescue which results in losses worth millions of Australian dollars.
The statements of vision of both Aristocrat and Fortescue are realistic and practical. The values of Aristocrat involve creation of superior gaming experiences for its customers. The vision statement of Aristocrat embraces areas like safety, cost effectiveness and maximisation of profits. It must also be pointed out that the vision statement of Fortescue cannot be achieved to full extent to high chances of environmental hazards in the mining areas. This analysis shows that the vision of Fortescue is not totally realistic in the light of the influences of environmental conditions which the beyond the control of Fortescue (Gao et al. 2017).
The vision of Aristocrat to deliver international gaming experiences can be achieved within a shorter span of time. The vision statement of Fortescue embraces employee safety, cosyt effectiveness and revenue maximisation. It can be opined that the achievement of safety in the mines requires heavy investment in technology, human resources management and enhancement of safety measures (Erkan et al. 2016). Hence, in the light of the above facts, it can stated that compared to the vision of Aristocrat, the visions of Fortescue are time consuming, expensive and can only be achieved in the long run.
Values of the organisations:
The core values of Aristocrat are respect, courage, integrity and passion. The values of the organisation embrace employment of talented employees, advanced technology and innovation to enhance the gaming experiences of the gamers all round the world.
The organisational values of Fortescue Metal Group covers employee safety, family of it’s’ employees, integrity, determination, enthusiasm, over achievement of targets, employee empowerment, generation of new ideas and cost effectiveness (Saudi and Noor 2015).
A comparison of the values of Aristicrat and Fortesce show that the organisational values of the former has a narrower scope compared to the latter. The values of Aristocrat encompass respect, courage, integrity and passion. The values of Fortescue Group cover several issues like employee safety and cost effectiveness. A contrast between the organisational values of the two companies show that the values of Fortescue actually reflect the inherent risks factors like accident of the mining industry. The values of Aristocrat do not reflect the dangers like cyber threats which are inherent to the gaming industry (Johnson et al. 2014).
SMART Analysis of the values:
A SMART analysis of the values of Aristocrat and Fortescue are as follows:
The values of Aristocrat are very specific and speaks about values like respect, courage, integrity and passion. The values of Fortescue encompass vast areas like employee safety, work life balance and innovation. These components of the values of Fortescue directly reflect the opportunities like innovations and threats like safety issues inherent to the mining sector. However, the components like courage and integrity do not reveal to the gaming and gambling industry specifically. These comparisons show that values of Fortescue are more specific compared to the values of Aristocrat(Owen and Kemp 2014).
The values of Fortescue can be quantified and are hence more measurable compared to Aristocrat. The components of the organisational values of Fortescue like safety and cost effectiveness can be measured by calculating the reduction of accidents and losses due to them for a given period. The reduction in losses due to reduction in the number of accidents can be expressed monetarily and compared with past records to measure their effectiveness. However the components of the values of Aristocrat like courage and integrity cannot be measured monetarily (Blaikie et al. 2014). Hence, a comparison between the organisational values of the two companies on the grounds of measurability shows that the values of Fortescue are measurable.
The values of Aristocrat consists of components like courage, integrity and respect. The value system of Fortescue consists of components like employee safety, employee empowerment, work life balance and frugality. A comparison between the values of the two companies show that the values of Aristocrat like courage and respect can be achieved more easily. The values of Fortescue require huge initial investment like safety training of employees and installation of modern technology. They also require employment of additional safety officers to train and supervise the employees on appropriate safety measures. Thus, it can be stated that it more difficult to achieve the organisational values of Fortescue. However, it can also be stated that achievement of the organisational values like employee empowerment would motivate the employees to achieve higher standards of productivity which would add to the market value of the company (Slack, Corlett and Morris 2015).
The organisational values of Aristocrat consist of courage, integrity and passion. The organisational values of Fortescue consist of components like employee empowerment, employee safety and work life balance. A comparison between the values of the two companies on grounds of reality shows that the values of Fortescue are more realistic compared to Aristocrat. Values like empowerment of employment and augmentation of safety measures can be enforced and achieved in real life. This comparison shows that the values of Fortescue are more realistic, believable and would motivate the workers to increase their efficiencies (Morantz 2013). This would consequently increase the standard of business excellence achieved by Fortescue.
The values of Aristocrat like courage and passion can be installed in the company within short span of time. However, it can be pointed out that in comparison to the Aristocrat’s values, the values of Fortescue like increment in safety of workers can be achieved only in the long run. This is because such enforcement of values like increment of safety measures would require huge long term investments like installation of modern machinery, safety training of employees and hiring of safety personnel (Kamsu-Foguem, Rigal and Mauget 2013). Hence, it can stated that compared to Aristocrat, the values if Fortescue can be achieved only in the long run.
Corporate Social Responsibilities:
The corporate social responsibilities of the two companies Aristocrat Leisure Limited and Fortescue Metals Group have important roles in their own company policies and procedures. A comparison of Corporate Social Responsibilities between these two companies should be able to understand both of these belong to different industries. Aristocrat Leisure Limited, in Sydney, Australia, is a company that provides technologies and services to the international gaming industry. Fortescue Metal Group is a mining company situated in eastern Perth, Australia. Since Aristocrat is a gaming and gambling company so they do not cause pollution like the Fortescue group (Chan, Watson and Woodliff 2014). Due to the variation in industries the mining company is much broader and focuses on slavery, climate change, employee health and safety and corruption. This difference shows that in comparison to Aristocrat Leisure Limited, Fortescue’s CSR is vast and large. Fortescue’s value is at the top of their approach to CSR. They set the moral and ethical conditions which encompasses the company. The code of conduct builds the necessary standards of corporate and personal behavior and conduct expected from the company. The company Fortescue metal group has joined the numerous initiatives which endorse the maximum standards with respect to CSR and United Nations Global Impact. The community category of Aristocrat covers the effectiveness and commitment within the national, local and international community in which it operates its business (Mason and Simmons 2014). It showcases the citizenship, volunteerism and charity of the two companies Aristocrat and Fortescue metals group. The community focuses on the human rights record and the supply chain treatment of the companies. Along with that it covers the social and environmental impacts of the products and services of the company which helps in developing the sustainable products, technologies and processes. The employee category evaluates the initiatives of proactive management, complying with the national rules and regulations and quality of policies and programs. Employee health and safety policies, safety management systems, safety performance record and comprehensive benefits are also included in the corporate social responsibility of the company. Another category is environment where the data covers the interaction with the environment along with using natural resources and the companies’ impact on the ecosystem of the planet. It assesses the corporate performance of the environment including the regulations, mitigation, leadership and energy efficient operations of the company(Jizi et al. 2014). There are programs in the management which involves the stakeholders for improving the condition of the environment. The fourth category ensures the disclosure of procedures, executive compensation and the ethical leadership of the company. Corporate governance indicates the leadership structure and the values that of corporate direction performance and ethics. The execution of CSR of Fortescue is broader and more elaborate than the Aristocrat group. This is because they have collaborations with foreign bodies like United Nations which enhances the sustenance of natural resources and biodiversity (Ayuso et al. 2014).
SMART analysis of CSR can be compared between the two companies in the following way. Specific- While the CSR of Fortescue is broad and vast, the CSR of Aristocrat is specific and to the point of the nature of their business. Measurable- The CSR of Aristocrat can be measured easily because they are not spread at large like the Fortescue metal. Achievable- CSR of Aristocrat is easily achievable but the CSR of Fortescue is not because of the smaller expansion of their business. Since Fortescue is a huge business therefore the CSR will not be easily achievable. Realistic- The CSR of Aristocrat will not be realistic as compared to Fortescue metal because of their larger expansion which might not give the desired result. Timely- The CSR of Fortescue involves stakeholders and a variety of items like slavery, corruption and human rights and it is achievable within a short time period. Therefore, to achieve the CSR of Fortescue will take a lot of time and need to be categorized into different short, medium and long term goals to achieve (Chan, Watson and Woodliff 2014).
Stakeholders mentioned in the corporate statements:
The companies have two kinds of stakeholders- internal and external. Internal stakeholders include directors, chairman and executives while the external stakeholders include customers, suppliers and other such publics. Corporate statements report of the Fortescue showed that their number of stakeholders is bigger than that of Aristocrat. The top external stakeholder of Aristocrat is PWC or Price Waterhouse Coopers. Fortescue has Joint Ores Reserve Committee, WA department of Mines as their main external stakeholders. Both these companies, Aristocrat and Fortescue have stakeholders like customers and community. The stakeholders can have an impact on the policies, objectives and actions of the organizations (ArAs 2016).
From the comparison and contrast of the two companies, Aristocrat leisure Limited and Fortescue metals group, it can be concluded that although they belong to different industries but still they have a common goal when it comes to earning profits. Difference in vision and mission regarding the Corporate Social Responsibility have showed that the mining company Fortescue group is much bigger and expanded than the gaming company, Aristocrat. This assignment also had a SMART evaluation of the two companies which shows that Fortescue surpasses Aristocrat in every way starting from the stakeholders to their corporate social responsibilities.
ArAs, G., 2016. A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility. CRC Press.
aristocrat.com. 2017. Community. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 Aug. 2017].
Ayuso, S., Rodr?guez, M.A., Garc?a-Castro, R. and Ari?o, M.A., 2014. Maximizing stakeholders’ interests: An empirical analysis of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance. Business & society, 53(3), pp.414-439.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B., 2014. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B., 2014. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
Burgherr, P. and Hirschberg, S., 2014. Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 74, pp.S45-S56.
Chan, M.C., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D., 2014. Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), pp.59-73.
?ovi?, N., Ali?, H. and Mani?, G., 2016. Effects of recreational soccer on health status improvement. Sport Sci, 18.
Erkan, B., Ertan, G., Yeo, J. and Comfort, L.K., 2016. Risk, profit, or safety: Sociotechnical systems under stress. Safety science, 88, pp.199-210.
Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 Aug. 2017].
Gao, J., Pan, J., Wang, M. and Gu, S., 2017. The Spatial and Temporal Distribution Characteristics of Rainstorm Disaster in Sichuan Province over the Past Decade. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 5(08), p.1.
Jizi, M.I., Salama, A., Dixon, R. and Stratling, R., 2014. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), pp.601-615.
Johnson, B., Laszka, A., Grossklags, J., Vasek, M. and Moore, T., 2014, March. Game-theoretic analysis of DDoS attacks against Bitcoin mining pools. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 72-86). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Kamsu-Foguem, B., Rigal, F. and Mauget, F., 2013. Mining association rules for the quality improvement of the production process. Expert systems with applications, 40(4), pp.1034-1045.
Mahdevari, S., Shahriar, K. and Esfahanipour, A., 2014. Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Science of the Total Environment, 488, pp.85-99.
Mason, C. and Simmons, J., 2014. Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), pp.77-86.
Morantz, A.D., 2013. Coal Mine Safety: Do Unions Make a Difference?. ILR Review, 66(1), pp.88-116.
Owen, J.R. and Kemp, D., 2014. ‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base. Resources Policy, 41, pp.91-100.
Saudi, M.H.M. and Noor, K.B.M., 2015. The Effect of Performance Management System Implementation: The Case of A Malaysian Service Organization from BSC Learning and Growth’s Perspective. ADVANCES IN GLOBAL BUSINESS RESEARCH Vol. 12, No. 1, ISSN: 1549-9332, p.154.
Slack, R.E., Corlett, S. and Morris, R., 2015. Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organisational participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), pp.537-548.
Tyulenev, M., Zhironkin, S., Kolotov, K. and Garina, E., 2016. Background of innovative platform for substitution of quarry water purifying technology. Pollution Research, 35.