The modern business world is multi disciplinary. A number of companies are paying in the market with a diverse pattern of services as well as products. therefore, it can easily be understood that they have diverse pattern of operation, management, values, stakeholders, visions and missions. In the short span of this report the author has presented a dedicated and hones comparison between two selected companies, they are: CSL and Macquarie Group. Both the companies are Australia based. CSL can be identified as a globally operating bio-therapeutics organization that creates and provides innovative biotherapies to save lives, and assists individuals with critical medical conditions live the full lives. The company is now providing their major services in the countries like Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Germany and the U.S. and many more. The company is now playing with a huge army of employees, which comprises almost 1600 employees (Csl.com.au 2016). On the other hand, the Macquarie Group is an international financial service provider. The company is now operating in 28 countries. They are an investment-banking group (Macquarie.com 2016).
The compare and contrast:
The purpose of this part is to analyse the difference or the potential similarities between these two distinct business setups.
The vision and mission:
The vision or mission of a company can be identified as a written statement of the core purpose and focus of the organization. The companies which play is different sectors will surely have different mission statements.
The mission statement of CSL:
As mentioned in the annual report of the company, the mission statement of the organization can be identified as, to grow as an Australian public company with a specialization in the biological products benefitting Australian as well as international health care sector (Csl.com.au 2016).
The mission statement of Macquarie Group:
The company does not have a clearly sated mission statement. However, the website has stated that the company’s approach to its governance is:
To uphold the long term prosperity of the company while carefully managing risk;
To follow and develop a sustainable and fine “shareholder value” over the future by aligning the interests the staffs and shareholders;
To meet stakeholder outlook of firm corporate governance, to perform Macquarie’s “broader responsibility to clients, shareholders, investors and the communities in which it operates” (Macquarie.com 2016)
Hence, from this discussion of the two companies’ mission statement, it can be reviewed that both the companies does not have any clearly stated or elaborately discussed vision or mission statements. On the other hand, it can be said that the between the two companies the latter one has a better clarity in their mission statement. In the mission of the first company there is no concentration on the stakeholders whereas, the latter one has provided a distinct value to the shareholders’ perspective.
Now, as opined by Asquer (2015), it is important for the companies to set its vision or mission which comes under the SMART (specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, time related) framework. However, the mission statement of CSL cannot be claimed as specific. It does not include any specific area of the business operation for concentration. On the other hand, Macquarie Group has specified that they will focus on “risk management”, “shareholders’ value” and “corporate governance”. CSL has not provided any measurable indication of the mission statement. However, Macquarie Group has vaguely described some measures, like, risk management for profitability. None of the mission statements is assignable and time related. They do not have any indication, who will be responsible to achieve these missions. both the companies’ mission statement is realistic.
However, both the companies have glorious pasts. As stated by Psaros and Seamer (2015) Macquarie Group was founded in 1969 with only three people, now they are operating globally. Over the years, the company has achieved a number of career milestones. It has earned high margins and has the label of “The Millionaire Factory” (Erkens et al. 2012). Hence, it can be said that their vision of creating long-term prosperity is a believable statement. The company is also focusing on the corporate governance since its inception. Hence, it can be said that the mission statement is believable and is adding value to the company profile.
On the other hand, as mentioned by Maitland (2013) CSL was established in 1916 as an Australian governmental body. In 1923, the organization made an early production of insulin, developed combined vaccine of “diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough” in 1953, pioneered the heart treatment “to protect blood and plasma products from infection with HIV in 1983 and many more (Britt et al. 2013). Hence, it can be said that the company will surely achieve its mission and the statement is factual.
Values of the organizations:
Values of CSL:
As discussed by Maitland (2013) in 2002, the company has established a set of values for the organizational operation. The values of CSL can be identified as “customer focused service, innovation in operation, integrity in management, collaborative performance, the supreme quality of service” (Csl.com.au, 2016).
Values of Macquarie Group:
As mentioned by Bouvain et al. (2013) the principals of the company can be identified as identifying opportunity and realizing them for the shareholders, supporting innovation, entrepreneurial skill and ingenuity, responsibility and accountability to the clients, honesty and integrity and follow ethical codes of conduct.
Within the analysis of the SMART framework, it can be said that CSL’s values are clearly specific and wholesome. As mentioned by Goetsch and Davis (2014) it includes all the aspects of organizational values (client improvement, employee care, honesty and teamwork). On the other hand, the Macquarie Group’s values are to that mush specific. They do not include any target specific area to approach unlike CSL. However, in both the cases, the values are not measurable and assignable to any specific individual. They are realistic in the context of both of the companies. CSL is serving as a public company hence; they are following the values with assistance of the government. On the other hand, the evidence of Macquarie Group’s value maintenance can be identified in its profitability and customer popularity.
The governmental assistance is helping CSL to incorporate a employee oriented value. As mentioned by Grayson-Morison and Ramsay (2014) in 2011, the organization was awarded the “Minister's Award for Outstanding Equal Employment Opportunities Initiative”. Innovations in its product have placed it as “world's second largest influenza vaccine company.” hence, it can be said that the value statement of the company is believable indeed.
On the other hand, as mentioned by Ho et al. (2015) in 2016, the CEO of Macquarie Group has been declared as; “nation's highest paid CEO of a listed company as they announced a net profit after tax for the year at A$2.06 billion”. Moreover, the connection of the company with the governmental authority has made it possible for them to utilize the financial opportunities.
Corporate social responsibility:
The CSR value of CSL can be identified as conducting the business in ethically, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable way. The areas of CSR of CSL are: research and development, high standard therapy, ethical marketing, positive working environment, patient support, and minimized environmental footprint.
On the other hand, the CSR of Macquarie Group includes environmental, social and managerial commitments. As opined by Shann (2016) the company is following a guideline of carbon neutrality and reducing the carbon emission percentage. They are also focusing in building business in renewable energy sector, providing staff training, ethical conduct and promoting health and safety in work environment.
Both the company’s corporate social responsibility can be identified as SMART. However, the CSR activities of both the companies are hugely integrated and all encompassing. However, the CSR statements of both of the companies avoid using the period and specified responsibility. However, by discussing the CSR activities of the companies the major issues can be noticed clearly.
CSL has created its personal environmental policies for performing the ecological responsibilities. Macquarie Group is also promoting the environmental issues. Moreover, the company is also following the strategy of upholding a positive work environment. Macquarie Group is also providing training to their employees for upholding positive work environment. CSL is providing community support for better health status whereas, Macquarie Group has donated 240081 $ to the government for community support (Shann 2016).
Hence, it can be stated that both the company’s CSR commitments are adding value to their reputations.
The corporate statement of CSL maintains mentioning the key personalities of the company. it is providing the names of the directors and other members of the managerial posts. Moreover, the company is also providing the names of the investors in the corporate statement as the stakeholders of the company. However, the company has also mentioned that it is a governmental setup and hence includes the national authority as one of the major stakeholders. However, the subordinate level employees have not been included as the stakeholders list of the organization in its corporate statement. As opined by Park et al. (2016) the organization is fundamentally following the bureaucratic pattern of governance. However, the organization has provided a brod range of stakeholders’ list in its CSR related part. It includes: patients, plasma donors, employees, shareholders, media, consumers, health professionals, in-licence partners, suppliers, policy makers, regulators and many more.
On the other hand, the corporate statement of Macquarie Group has mentioned the name of the board of members. The company website has also mentioned the investors as the stakeholders of the organization. As mentioned by Allen and Pryke (2013) the company is also including some of the notable members of the governmental authority as the stakeholders. This particular company is following the structure of a corporation. Unlike, CSL, Macquarie Group has only included the directors, shareholders and the consumers as their stakeholders.
CSL has a strong past of following the governmental rules regarding its operation. On the other hand, the corporate structure of Macquarie Group is assisting the company to achieve its goal since a long time. Hence, their organizational goal can be stated as a believable one and the they are adding values to the organizational profile.
As discussed by Goetsch and Davis (2014) the different operational sectors of organizations and the governmental structure fundamentally determines the values and other aspects of them. From the above discussion, it can be said that both the companies are following the modern ethical and managerial values of the business world. As opined by Grayson-Morison and Ramsay (2014) as a governmentally controlled organization CSL is typically focusing on the customer service. It needs to focus on the profit base in a more integrated manner. On the other hand, Macquarie Group is typically following the profit-making motive. However, as mentioned by Bouvain et al. (2013) the company is genuinely following the ethical managerial strategies, it is helping them to prevent from behaving overboard regarding the operation of the company. On the hand, as opined by Ho et al. (2015) the corporate governance of the company is helping the organization to control the ethical code of conduct within the organization. Hence, in the conclusion, it can be stated that the both the companies are trying to achieving the best place in their operational sector. By forming their objectives in a SMART manner, they will be able to achieve this goal.
Allen, J. and Pryke, M., 2013. Financialising household water: Thames Water, MEIF, and ‘ring-fenced’politics. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(3), pp.419-439.
Asquer, A., 2015. Managing Challenging Organizational Change: Introducing active labour market policies in Italian public employment agencies. Public Management Review, 17(6), pp.901-921.
Bouvain, P., Baumann, C. and Lundmark, E., 2013. Corporate social responsibility in financial services: A comparison of Chinese and East Asian banks vis-?-vis American banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing,31(6), pp.420-439.
Britt, H., Miller, G.C., Henderson, J., Bayram, C., Valenti, L., Harrison, C., Charles, J., Pan, Y., Zhang, C., Pollack, A.J. and O'Halloran, J., 2013.General Practice Activity in Australia 2012-13: BEACH: Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (No. 33). Sydney University Press.
Csl.com.au. 2016. CSL Limited is a global biotherapy industry leader.. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Aug. 2016].
Erkens, D.H., Hung, M. and Matos, P., 2012. Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions worldwide.Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(2), pp.389-411.
Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. pearson.
Grayson-Morison, R. and Ramsay, I., 2014. Responsibilities of the Board of Directors. Company and Securities Law Journal, 32(1), pp.69-77.
Ho, J.A., Ang, Y.H. and Tee, K.K., 2015. Institutional corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices: the influence of leadership styles and their perceived ethics and social responsibility role. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(spec. Jan.), pp.17-32.
Macquarie.com. 2016. Personal Banking Australia | Products & Services For You | Macquarie. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Aug. 2016].
Maitland, I., 2013. CSL Australia PTY LTD v Formosa: Jurisdiction and Duty of Care. Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ, 27, p.18.
Park, A.J., Patent, L.A., Mark, T., Diagnostics, A., Leibler, A.B., Council, A.C.B., Blood, A.R.C., Network, B., Dispatch, B., Cave, D.C. and Tohmatsu, D.T., 2016. Corporate, institute and associate members of AusBiotech.Australasian BioTechnology, 26(1).
Psaros, J. and Seamer, M., 2015. Ranking Corporate Governance of Australia's Top Companies: A Decade On. Australian Accounting Review,25(4), pp.405-412.
Shann, E., 2016. An economic history of Australia. Cambridge University Press.