A Grocery Store Company Lobbies for Special Status during the Coronavirus Pandemic While Falling Short

In early April, 2020, Albertsons Companies, which at the time owned Safeway, ACME Markets, Jewel-Osco, Vons, Pavilions and Albertsons grocery stores, joined with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) to get American governments to designate the workers as first responders. The joint statement reads in part, “The temporary designation of first responder or emergency personnel status would help ensure these incredible grocery workers access to priority testing, have access to personal protection equipment, like masks and gloves, as well as other workplace protections necessary to keep themselves and the customers they serve safe and healthy.”[1] Although keeping grocery workers healthy was important, the focus on testing and equipment can be viewed as problematic in that the company’s management was falling short on more crucial safety measures.

If the masks being sought were merely surgical masks—and in shopping in Safeway stores I saw many employees already wearing them—it is important to remember that that type of mask (i.e., without a respirator) does not keep the virus out; rather, the masks are designed to stop water droplets from getting out so the risk of infection to other people nearby is reduced as such droplets can carry virus. However, the virus can still go through and around a mask even just by the person breathing. Stopping that would (hopefully obviously) be worse than catching the disease.

I suspect that the typical worker was not aware that the mask does nothing to stop the wearer from getting infected; the purpose is more altruistic—namely, reducing the risk that the wearer infects other people. Because  I did not see any Safeway workers going out of their way to keep at a physical distance from customers even after more than a month, I don’t believe that the workers wore masks for the good of the customers. Furthermore, I can say that Safeway’s management extending down to the store level was shirking the responsibility to keep customers as well as employees as safe as possible. 

Why would a store manager watch employees pay little heed to keeping a distance from customers when such distance was possible? Why would an employee not even "hug" the other side of a hallway while passing a customer? Perhaps the employees, being used to putting policies to customers, took offense when the roles were reversed, with customers even just reminding employees of the store policy (and government guideline). I suspect that the employees were reacting to the reversal in power. When I asked employees to keep a distance, I saw facial expressions saying, in effect, I don’t have to take orders from you. 

Regarding the store managers, they were doubtlessly not used to being embarrassed by customers pointing to blatant employee noncompliance. Perhaps the managers were not used to confronting noncompliant customers; perhaps the managers were scared. Perhaps the managers were not comfortable taking an active role with employees and customers in the stores. Perhaps the managers were used to the weaker form, passive management, even when they knew that noncompliance was ubiquitous. Such a situation would require a real manager, rather than a person behind a curtain.  

One day in late March, I suggested to a store manager that he make an announcement reminding employees as well as customers that maintaining a physical distance was a store policy and government guideline. “Maybe I’ll have a store meeting on that,” he replied. Lest this be thought to be a sign of bureaucracy, I submit that the discretion involved rendered the choice a sign of weakness. No announcement for the customers ensued even as employees were clustering around customers at the cashier area where the manager was standing! Focusing on masks and testing can be viewed as of much less importance. In fact, the managerial judgment that prioritizes such a focus over keeping employees and customers safe in the first place is severely faulty. 

So too is the judgment of a store manager who refuses to intervene when a customer insults another customer for asking for some physical distance between them. In mid-April, I observed a store manager refuse to intervene to ask two people to observe physical distancing, as they had been violating it, and even to confront them when he heard them insulting another customer for having asked them to keep at a distance rather than pass close by. This was a case of disgustingly incompetent, impotent store management.

Meanwhile, store employees were walking closely by customers with impunity and even lie, "I'm trying" to offended customers. Actually trying would mean keeping to the other side of an aisle or hallway rather than walking down the center. Real trying would mean not walking directly at customers, expecting them to back away. During the first months of the pandemic, I did not see one employee pause, back up, or take even a slight detour so to maintain physical spacing. The presumption that the customers should move out of the way if they want to take precautions is so toxic that the supervising management can also be condemned; the attitude is that bad.

In incessantly interrupting and failing even to acknowledge that her subordinate had provided bad customer service, the manager over that department demonstrated the attitude to me in early April. I had asked the subordinate at the desk to call another store to ask whether it had toilet paper. “No I won’t call,” the subordinate had stubbornly replied, “because I know what they will say.” It was still early in the morning, and she had not contacted the other store yet that morning, so she told me she would call. She quickly went into the back office. When she came out of the small office only seconds later, she told me that she had had a conversation with the manager inside instead. In the conversation that lasted just a few seconds, the manager told her subordinate that all of the stores would get deliveries of the product that night. "But that doesn't mean that the other store is out of the product now, which is why I asked you to call," I replied. Because the employee didn't understand how she had not answered my question (which alone is telling), I asked to speak with the manager.

 
The forthcoming conversation was even worse. After I stated that just because all the stores in the district would get shipments that night, we can't assume from this that the other store was out. Rather than attending to my point, the manager went into a monologue on how much of every other product impacted by the hoarding was doing in the store. 

In retrospect, I would realize that the lack of concern for customers connected the bad customer service with the attitude of the management toward enforcing distance on the employees and reminding customers to keep a distance from each other. The failure or refusal to enforce physical distancing on employees demonstrates a lack of concern for not only them, but also the customers. So too does not making sufficient store announcements to customers when most are not maintaining physical distance from each other. Were physical distancing a priority of the store managers, then getting more masks and tests would have been much less necessary. 

  
Proper management of employees and genuine concern for customers in real time (i.e., even stopping a noncomplying customer from lashing out at other customers who had asked for more physical space from that customer) would have done a lot more than lobbying for masks, which do not prevent the employee-wearer from being infected, and tests after-the-fact. If the company’s management was really concerned about employees, the distance policy would have been enforced. Lest the company's management tout corporate social responsibility programs in order to deflect attention from a lack of genuine responsibility for employees and customers, a peripheral program does not trump social responsibility directly in the line of business operations because the latter has more of an effect on customers and employees, who are more central to a business than are societal problems.

 

I suspect that in American politics too, enabled by the media, secondary issues gain focus even at the expense of vital issues. Within an issue, symptoms or manifestations get more attention than does removing the cause. Redressing the cause of an illness is better than merely alleviating symptoms. As in the case of Albertsons Companies, focusing on a peripheral rather than a more central matter can be relatively easy and easier to problem-solve. Focusing on peripheral matters can thus make companies and governments look better than they actually are. How a company or government is actually falling short in more crucial ways is not transparent when the organizational and societal focus is on what the company or government is doing even to make up for its falling short. 

On Nietzsche's thought on weak management, see Skip Worden, On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzshean Critique of Business Ethics and Management.

---

1. Aine Cain and Hayley Peterson, “A Major Grocer Is Pushing to Classify Its Employees as First Responders, Giving Them Priority for Testing and Protective Gear,” Business Insider, April 7, 2020 (accessed April 8, 2020).

Authentic Corporate Social Responsibility during a Pandemic

"We’re doing a lot of social distancing,” U.S. President Trump claimed during his press conference on Coronavirus on March 23, 2020. The day before, he had said he is proud of the American people for voluntarily taking precautions. March 21st, I had been in a Target store to buy some necessary items. No one was "social distancing," including employees. A more accurate, and better understood term would be physical distancing, as it is more broadly applicable than socializing and the latter can be done at a distance, especially via telephone and the internet.[1] A day before, I had been in two grocery stores—two because one—a Safeway [Albertsons]—was missing so many hoarded items. I found no physical distancing at Safeway and Sprouts. The former was not that safe after all, and the latter's healthy-food was not being sold in a healthy way. It was as if the employees, customers, and managements were oblivious to the obvious risks, but the explanation may be more complex. I contend that it applies to corporate social responsibility too, for I also found that none of the store managers was making announcements or had signage to remind people to keep a distance from other people in the respective stores. On March 26, 2020, I again saw no physical distancing by employees and customers at a Safeway store; the store manager told me he would have a store meeting on the issue. In the meantime, not even periodic announcements would be made. This is known as erroneously applying status-quo management procedures in a state of emergency. Also, Safeway's store management had not acted proactively to ration products such as toilet paper and cleaning products that had been voraciously grabbed off the shelves by herd-exuberant customers in a panic mode. In short, I submit that the unique business conditions of the Coronavirus pandemic can be used to assess whether corporate social responsibility is real or merely a marketing tool.

(This is not the Safeway store where I found the deliquencies.) 

I begin with the matters of relinquishing old habits and starting new ones, for both are important to being proactive both at the individual and store levels during a pandemic. Plato’s dictum, to know the good is to do the good, relies on the human proclivity to create and maintain habits. In other words, habitually doing the good, which presupposes knowing what the good is, plays a vital role in doing the good. It gets easier once a good habit has been established and practiced. We are indeed very habitual animals. We tend to take the same route to work, sit in the same seat where seating is open, and even eat the same foods at breakfast as if in a rut. So Plato’s emphasis on habit is wise. If staying at home and keeping at a physical distance from other people are good habits during a pandemic, then the emphasis should be on establishing these habits and attending to them until the new habits become easy, even automatic. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.

A good habit faces two hurdles. Firstly, contravening habits must be resisted. When the Coronavirus just getting started in the U.S., I literally had to pull back my arm so I would not shake someone’s hand. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to shake hands now,” I told the other person, who was stunned. My habit of shaking hands had become so ingrained in my mind that it sent my left arm out even though I had decided not to shake hands. Pulling my arm back felt so unnatural that actually doing it felt difficult, as if I were fighting against horizontal gravity; it was as if I had to drag my arm back.

Furthermore, that the other person was stunned even though he knew the reason was reasonable stunned me. Why the apparent affront in the face of a pandemic already present locally? I suspect that the man’s reasoning was not controlling his passions (emotions). In The Republic, Plato writes that such a psyche is unjust. So too, by the way, is the polis (i.e., a political geographical area) that has passions unrestrained or checked by reason via individuals or a government. A government has a responsibility, for example, to see that the passions that would otherwise thwart reason’s conclusions do not. So, many governments were urging or ordering people to stay at home (i.e., self-quarantine) and maintain physical distance in public during the Coronavirus pandemic. That government, acting justly, had to contend with preexisting habits such as shaking hands and walking or standing at a close distance to other people. From the standpoint of those habits, the government’s position may have seemed unjust, perhaps as invasive or overreactions. In short, ongoing habits die hard.

The second hurdle that a good habit must overcome to be sustained is the person going beyond the decisions and actually engage the new behaviors enough such that they stick. It is one thing to decide to do something different, and quite another thing to change behavior. This goes beyond stopping previous habits, such as shaking hands and standing close to other people; new behaviors must be done enough to gain traction. Simply having made the decision to change is not enough. Yet implementing a new choice is difficult because the conduct is not aided by the force of habit until the conduct is done enough times to become habitual. Hence Plato’s dictum that doing something good enough for it to become a habit is important. This applies to corporate social responsibility at the managerial level (especially at the store level).

In the grocery stores (and the Target store) that I went to when it was reasonable to assume that most Arizonans would be aware of the need to keep a certain distance from others, I found that few if any people were engaged in the practice. Even if they had made the decisions to engage in the practice, which was in line with the core human motive of self-preservation, they had not resisted old, antithetical practices and put the new behaviors into practice enough for them to become habitual, and thus easier.

Rationally, a human being would tend to be motivated based on self-preservation to form new conducive habits. In other words, a law should not be necessary. Perhaps the force of old habits is powerful enough to eclipse even the motive for self-preservation, or maybe the problem lies in too many people not making even rather obvious connections between, say, staying at a distance and not catching the virus. Arizona was at the time 49th out of the 50 American States in primary and secondary education (i.e., before college). 

Corporate social responsibility could have bridged the gap, such as by a store manager making regular announcements that everyone in the store should maintain a certain physical distance from everyone else. I suggested this to the store manager on duty at Sprouts grocery store as I was leaving, but he demurred even though the chain was touting its social responsibility in providing healthy produce to customers. He looked at me as though I were from France. C'est drole, n-est-pas? 

Perhaps that manager feared that some customers in the store would overreact out of fear and immediately leave the store, beginning an unprofitable stampede. The bad education system locally may also have been a factor, for he presumably could have made the announcement in a calming, friendly way. "Hey, thanks for shopping with us today. Just a reminder that the government recommends that we all keep a distance of at least ... from each other. Nothing to worry about; just a precaution." The informal, friendly tone, the use of "government" rather than "public health agencies," the use of "recommends" rather than "orders," the "nothing to worry about," and the sense that the manager and employees were included would likely have been sufficient to stifle any herd-animal stampede, even in Arizona. However, at the end of March, 2020, while I was in a Target store, a simple, "Please keep a distance of six feet between you and others" announcement played every half-hour and did not trigger any stampedes. Even then, neither Sprouts nor Safeway were making announcements in their respective stores even though from my visits I could see a lot of non-distancing, even by employees. 

Perhaps the manager at the Sprouts store was so ingrained in old thinking habits that my suggestion did not even register such that he did not even make a decision. Both hurdles to beginning a new habit (i.e., making the announcement periodically) may have been too high for the man, yet it is curious that the company did not have a policy of making announcements as of the end of March.

Similarly, the manager of the Safeway store was in a meeting-rut when on March 26th he told me he would have to have a store meeting in the future rather than make announcement to employees and customers alike to please keep a distance of 6 feet/1.8 meters in keeping with the government's recommendation of distancing. Ironically, when his employee charged with sanatizing the shelves had walked very close to me and I reminded him of the distancing, his response was essentially to blame me. "Just relax," he said twice (he was obviously not). Interestingly, although the cashiers had a new protective clear-plastic sheet separating them from customers, at least one young cashier couldn't hear the customers because of the screen so she would lean sideways to speak at close range without any barrier face to face at close range. More than one office meeting would be needed at that store.

On a positive note, Sprouts's shelves were well stocked, whereas Safeway's were not. Safeway's managers may have been in too much of a mental and behavioral rut to catch the drasically increasing sales figures on items like toilet paper and ration them. Of course, the resistance to rationing may have been from the profit-motive, in which case we could conclude that the company's CSR programs paled in comparison to authentic corporate social responsibility within the business (i.e., closer to the core business functioning, or operative business model). Safeway managers may have discounted the point that rationing may even have an overall good financial effect as fewer customers face empty shelves and thus a bad experience.

I do contend that the store managements had a social responsibility to see that their employees and customers were as safe as possible from catching the illness while in the stores. It cannot be said that the managements were pro-active; even their reactivity was laggard or incomplete. Besides making simple announcements on distancing especially at the cashier area, responsibility extended to picking up on, and acting upon, abrupt trends in product sales in enough time to ration items even if rationing is not in the short-term financial interest of the companies. The companies' respective charters undoubtedly give those companies the right to make food available to paying customers. With that right comes a responsibility that becomes particularly active not only when too many customers and employees are not keeping a distance, but also when some customers are hoarding a product to such an extent that the stores cannot provide that product to other customers in a reasonable period of time. Rather than pointing here to CSR programs whereby a company sponsors a baseball team or food bank, I am referring to authentic social responsibility, which lies in managers and employees taking responsibility in the conduct of business, directly with people rather than through an institutional program. In other words, the authentic sort tends to a bottom-up phenomenon, at least at first, though proactive companies can issue companywide policies that are consistent with the measures taken in some stores in a timely manner. I contend this sort of responsibility is most likely to be enacted in strong companies, whereas the weak are too focused on entrails—too easily held back by preexisting choices and habits to venture new choices and implement new policies. Perhaps this case study comes down to this: Why in the world would a store manager NOT make a store announcement after a customer recommends doing so because people, including employees, are not keeping a distance to each other? It is reasonable to expect that the manager would not only make an announcement, but also call his superior other store managers can do likewise. Perhaps the rare situation of a pandemic reveals that the typical mentality in retail management is excessively rigid, even if being so is not really being cautious after all, but impedes caution being actualized at the store level. 

1. "It is important for us all to realize that when they recommend 'social distancing' . . . what health experts are really promoting are practices that temporarily increase our physical distance from one another in order to slow the spread of the virus." Cecilia Menjivar, Jacob Foster, and Jennie Brand, "Don't call it 'social distancing'," CNN.com, March 21, 2020 (accessed April 4, 2020). 

Saving the Fisheries: Greenpeace Praised Safeway for its Ethical and Stately Leadership

In April 2011, Greenpeace gave fifteen supermarket chains a passing grade; five others failed. Surprisingly, Safeway came out on top, above even Whole Foods. Safeway pledged to stop selling Chilean sea bass (Patagonian toothfish) because current fishing levels are unsustainable. Furthermore, the grocer called on governing bodies to declare the area in the southern Antarctic where the bass is fished a marine reserve. According to Casson Trenor of Greenpeace, such an act of “corporate marine activism” had “never been done before.” Safeway also discontinued the sale of orange mughy, which is unsustainably being fished in the deep sea off New Zealand.  In fact, the company stopped adding red-list species to its inventory.

Beyond any added sales from the enhancement of Safeway’s reputational capital, the company’s moves, going even as far as activism, are in line with facilitating the future supply of the seafood products.  In other words, the moves represent a sort of long-term investment, with the cost being the additional money that could be made in the short term from selling the fish. That other grocers, such as Giant Eagle and Publix, failed in the Greenpeace grading suggests that other companies are profiting in the short term from Safeway’s self-imposed restraint for a long-term benefit available to every grocer. 

In other words, it goes against the law of externalities for one company to voluntary exclude an otherwise salable product from the shelves while competitors benefit from not only that exclusion, but also the long-term benefit of full fisheries available to any grocer. Ordinarily, this dynamic is why a cartel or government regulation is necessary—so all companies recognize the constraint in the short term for the good of the whole industry in the long term. As compelling as that long-term benefit may be, some people will refuse to shove the trough away while there is anything left in it—such is the instinct of instant gratification over deferred enjoyment in human nature.  Hence, it is amazing that any one business would observe a self-imposed constraint at the expense of expediency that is not being observed by others in the industry.

Safeway may represent a case of ethical leadership that is in line with statesmanship. In addition to being ethical (i.e., following an ethical principle such as sustainability), standing alone in the activism (i.e., the leadership) in this case forsakes immediate self-interest for the public good (i.e., statesmanship).  The three elements—ethics, leadership, and statesmanship—can thus be distinguished and related.

An interesting question is whether corporate managers are being ethical in terms of their fiduciary duty if ethical leadership in line with statesmanship is not in stockholders’ financial interest even in the long term. In the present case, it could be argued that the foregone profit is not worth the added profit in the long term from sustainable fisheries.  Additionally, it could be argued that Safeway could have continued to sell the unsustainable fish as Target and Wegmans sacrificed for the eventual benefit that Safeway too could enjoy. The problem of fiduciary duty could be obviated in such scenarios by securing stockholder approval at an annual meeting. 

At the level of property rights, profit-maximization is only a default that a company’s stockholders, as the owners, can modify or even replace.  Therefore, if a majority of shares vote to use the company to save the fisheries even at the overall financial detriment of the company, such a use of property/wealth is proper and legitimate for owners, with the caveat of minority stockholder rights being respected. Such rights can be satisfied by giving minority stockholders the right to sell at a worthwhile and fair price. Such selling would result in more solid ownership support for the new mission. Moreover, to use one’s property not only to make money, but also for a cause that one is passionate about can make life itself more enjoyable and thus worth living.   

Source:

Kim O’Donnel, “Safeway Scales the ‘Seafood Scoreboard’ by Greenpeace,” USA Today, April 18, 2011, p. 5D.