Compare And Contrast Of Aristocrat Leisure Limited And Fortescue Metals Group

Discussion: Vision statement Comparison

Discuss about the Compare and Contrast of Aristocrat Leisure Limited and Fortescue Metals Group.

The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian with Fortescue Metals Group, an Australian iron ore company      Aristocrat Liesure Limited is the biggest gambling machine maker in Australia, and  it is also ranked as  largest maker of slot machines in the planet, second just to International Game Technology. The company was founded in 1953 with the production of its first machine. The company was founded by Mr Len Aisworth. The company is licensed to sell gambling products and slot machines in over 200 jurisdictions in Australia. The company has 2,080 people as employees. The maximum revenue attained in a year was back in 2004 which was in excess of $1.1 billion Australian dollars.

Fortescue Metals Group was founded back in 2003 after discovery of major iron ore deposits and has now developed and constructed some of the most important iron ore mines in the world. The company operation spans a total of four mines in Pilbara. They also own and operate an integrated supply chain that includes the five berths Herb Elliott Port in Port Hedland and the fastest, heavy haul railway in the world.

Vision statement Of Aristocrat Leisure Limited is to create the best gambling and gaming experience each and every day. As the company deals with gambling games and slot machines the vision is appropriate to its needs (Kenny 2014). The statement states that the company wishes to provide the best products with superior quality that will enable the player to have a very pleasant and exciting experience which will make him play the game every day.  It holds true as aristocrat has the most modern technologies in its arsenal to make the experience more interactive and engaging for the players. In contrast to the vision statement of Fortescue aims to be the safest, most profitable and lowest cost iron ore producer (Carton Murphy and Clark 2014).

So in aspect of SMART test the vison is Specific as it is in context to the gambling and gaming industry, the vision is also Measurable as the industry the company deals with small and deals with the end customer, yes the vision is Achievable as aristocrat is one of the largest company manufacturing gambling games and the market is very small, it can also be stated that the vision is Realistic as gamers prefer specific games and it is possible for Aristocrat to penetrate into the preference list with good exciting games and lastly it can be stated that the vision is Timely for such an industry where product design and usability is in control of the producer(Olaisen 2016). 

Values of the organizations

Vision Statement of Fortescue Metals Group is to be the safest, low cost and most profitable producer of iron ore. The statement provides the context that the company is aiming to become the industry leader not just through production quantity but also through its process of production that is safest in the industry and the technology that the company uses will make the production cost lower thus helping FMG to provide cheaper ore to its customers (Ji et al 2015). The aim is to also become a profitable producer which can be done through increase in production as more production amounts to less cost and more end profit (Korschun 2014).

In context of the SMART test it can be note that the vision of Fortescue is Specific in terms of the way the company wants to proceed in the industry. The vision here is somewhat less Measurable as the iron ore industry is very vast with multiple aspects which are not always measurable. Yes the vision is Achievable to some extent even though there may be many obstacles be it legal, environmental and so on (Mai Perry and Loh 2014). The statement is Realistic due to the fact that the company is the fourth largest producer of iron ore and has in depth knowledge of the industry. The statement may not be as timely as the product production is not in the companies hands cause iron ore is formed naturally.

Organization values of Aristocrat believe in Respect, Courage, Integrity and Passion.
This provides the company to support the business, the people involved and the customer community. Respect is stated in terms of respect for the people involved that helps the company to conduct business be it t he employees or the customers (Francis Livingstone and Rintoul 2017) . Courage valued as it the driving force to take risks that helps in innovation on all fronts. Integrity is the backbone value as it assures that the products are consistent and there are no discrepancies between the promised product and the delivered. Passion is a value that helps the company to produce quality products (Hudson Bryson and Michelotti2017).

Organization values of Fortescue are integrity, determination, empowerment, Frugality, Safety, family, Idea Generation these values help the company to succeed in this aims. Integrity helps in providing consistent and proper production without any hidden agenda (Ng Walls and Wingard 2016).  Determination is key factor to achieve company goals as it is a driving force to attain proper results. Empowerment enables the employees to take decision in the company that help in optimum productivity. Frugality helps in achieving economic goals of the company thus results in less wastage of resources. Safety is is something  very important in the mining industry as employees risk their lives to mine ore from mines and safety values boost morale in a sense thet all safety measure are in order. Family this value relates to the fact that all the employees in the company are family and everyone is valuable in each of their way and the company will take care of their needs. Idea generation helps the company to implement new techniques and technologies to improve their production capabilities and over all work process (Vveinhardt Gulbovaite. and Streimikiene 2016.).

Corporate social responsibility/Sustainability

All the statements are believable and realistic to the point and they add genuine value to the company and its vision.   

The corporate social responsibilities of Aristocrat Leisure Limited and Fortescue Metals Group occupy a very important position in their respective company policies. A comparison between the corporate social responsibilities of the two companies must take into account the fact that they belong to different industries(Chan, Watson and Woodliff 2014). Aristocrat Leisure Limited is an internet gaming and gambling company with its headquarters in Sydney, Australia. Fortescue Metal Group is a mining company with its registered office in East Perth, Australia. Comparisons between the two companies on the grounds of their CSR are as follows:

Aristocrat Leisure Limited is a gaming and gambling company and causes minimum pollution. Its corporate social responsibility stresses more on ethical usage of internet while gambling and gaming(Mason and Simmons 2014).

Fortescue Metals Group is an iron articles manufacturing and marketing company which is a part of the mineral and mining sector which causes a lot of pollution. It is due to this difference in industries that its CSR is vast and encompasses several items like climate change, slavery, corruption and employee health and safety. Thus the comparison shows that compared to Aristocrat Leisure Limited, Fortescue’s CSR is vast due to the difference in their industries and operation(Jizi et al. 2014).

The components of the corporate responsibility of Aristocrat Leisure Limited are research in collaboration with computer laboratories to make more innovative and affordable games. The items also include preserving water resources, recycling wastes and manufacturing fuel efficiency vehicles. The company invests in making socially responsible games which are ethical and does not harm stakeholders like society and customers(Khan, Muttakin and Siddiqui 2013).

The areas of focus of the corporate social responsibility of Fortescue Metals Group encompass the following areas:

1. Ethical conduct, taking bribes and corruption.
2. Abolition of slavery and unethical suppliers.
3. Human rights.
4. Transparency in taxation and governance.
5. Employee security, health and development.
6. Engaging with stakeholders.
7. Development of local community like development of the Aborigines.
8. Preserving of natural resources like water reserves and combating climate changes.
9. Help the biodiversity of Australia to flourish.
10. Managing mining activities sustainably and environment friendly possible.
11. Earning higher profits to sustain the CSR.

A comparison between the CSR of the two companies reveal that the CSR of Fortescue is vast compared to the CSR of Aristocrat. It is due to the inherent nature of the mining industry which is prone to corruption, employee safety issues and slavery to a far greater extent than the gaming and hospitality sector (Hond et al. 2014).

The execution of corporate social responsibility of Aristocrat involves the employees participating in fund raising activities for their localities.  The ‘Global Volunteer Week’ encourages the employees to demonstrate the sustainable skills like recycling of wastes and raise funds to support poor people (Bair and Palpacuer 2015).

The executions of corporate social responsibility of Fortescue Metal Groups are more elaborate and expensive. The company collaborates with international bodies like United Nations to encourage restoration of biodiversity and natural resources (Alshareef and Sandhu 2015).

The CSR of Aristocrat is more specific due to its nature of business. The CSR of Fortescue Metals Group is vast and less specific because the company belongs to the mining industry which causes a lot of pollution.

The CSR of Aristicrat is more easily measurable owing to its smaller expanse compared to Fortescue. The CSR of the mining is vast and encompasses a lot of items hence, the measuring of its CSR require lot of documents like annual report, pollution report from factories and mines and so on.

The CSR of Aristocrat is achievable due to its smaller expanse which is mostly limited to ethical and socially beneficial gaming and gambling. The CSR of Fortescue Metal Group is vast and is not easily achievable.

The CSR of Aristocrat is achievable within a shorter span of time compared to Fortescue. The CSR of Fortescue includes stakeholders and deals with a vast array of items like corruption, slavery and human rights. These items are extremely complicated and involve laws, society and several other stakeholders. Thus, achieving CSR of Fortescue is very time consuming and the company has to group these CSR areas into short, medium and long term to achieve them.

The corporate statements of Aristocrat mention the names of stakeholders of two categories, namely internal and external. The internal stakeholders mentioned are directors, managing directors and senior executives (aristocrat.com. 2017). The reports also state the name of the external auditor, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). Among the external stakeholders the reports reveal the names of the key stakeholders like government, apex bodies namley Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Nevada Commission. The shareholders, customers and the community as a whole also find mention among the external stakeholders (Cascetta et al. 2015).

A review of the corporate statements of Fortescue reveals that the number of stakeholders of the company is far greater than Aristocrat. Fortescue in its reports too mention the internal stakeholders and external stakeholders in greater detail. The internal stakeholders mentioned are chairman and other employees. The reports pay a lot of importance to its employees of various categories like women and Aborigines which reflect the company’s diversity management power. The external stakeholders mentioned are suppliers, customers and shareholders. Among the key stakeholders apex bodies like government, WA department of Mines, Joint Ores Reserve Committee, Audit and  Risk Management Committee found mention in the reports. The audit of the company like Aristocrat is handled by PWC. However, international bodies like UNGC and Internatioanl Council On Mining and Metals find mention in the reports of Fortescue but not in the reports of Aristocrat. Both the companies mention stakeholders like community and customers.

Conclusion:

It can be concluded that Aristocrat and Fortescue have some common characteristics like aim to earn profits. However, they have different vision, mission and CSR owing the differences in sectors they belong to. The discussion shows that the area of business of Fortescue is far greater and varied compared to Aristocrat.

References:

Alshareef, M.N.Z. and Sandhu, K., 2015.

Integration Of Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) Into Corporate Governance: New Model, Structure And Practice: A Case Study Of Saudi Company European Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance Research, 3(5), pp.1-19.

aristocrat.com. 2017. Community. [online] Available at: https://www.aristocrat.com/community [Accessed 9 Aug. 2017].

Bair, J. and Palpacuer, F., 2015. CSR beyond the corporation: contested governance in global value chains. Global Networks, 15(s1).

Cascetta, E., Carteni, A., Pagliara, F. and Montanino, M., 2015. A new look at planning and designing transportation systems: A decision-making model based on cognitive rationality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods. Transport policy, 38, pp.27-39.

Chan, M.C., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D., 2014. Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), pp.59-73.

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility. [online] Available at: https://fmgl.com.au/community/corporate-social-responsibility/ [Accessed 9 Aug. 2017].

Hond, F., Rehbein, K.A., Bakker, F.G. and Lankveld, H.K.V., 2014. Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), pp.790-813.

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.

Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B. and Siddiqui, J., 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of business ethics, 114(2), pp.207-223.

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.

Carton, A.M., Murphy, C. and Clark, J.R., 2014. A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of  Management Journal, 57(6), pp.1544-1570.

Kenny, G., 2014. Your Company’s Purpose is Not Its Vision, Mission or Values. Harvard Business Review. Sep, 3.

Olaisen, J., 2016. Sources of creativity in consumer ideation: effects of providing information on company vision and market research (Master's thesis).

Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Swain, S.D., 2014. Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), pp.20-37.

Hudson, S., Bryson, D. and Michelotti, M., 2017. Individuals' Assessment of Corporate Social Performance, Person-Organization Values and Goals Fit, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions. Relations Industrielles, 72(2), p.322.

Vveinhardt, J., Gulbovaite, E. and Streimikiene, D., 2016. Different Values Forms in Organization: is the Congruence Possible?. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(2), p.117.

Ng, E.S., Walls, J. and Wingard, G., 2016. Getting to the Heart of Corporate Sustainability: The Role of Managerial Values and Motivation in the Mongolian Mining Industry.

Ji, R., Gao, Y., Liu, W., Xie, X., Tian, Q. and Li, X., 2015. When location meets social multimedia: A survey on vision-based recognition and mining for geo-social multimedia analytics. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 6(1), p.1.

Mai, C.C.C., Perry, C. and Loh, E., 2014. Integrating Organisational Change Management and Customer Relationship Management in a Casino. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 18(2), p.1.

Francis, L., Livingstone, C. and Rintoul, A., 2017. Analysis of EGM licensing decisions by the gambling regulator, Victoria, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 17(1), pp.65-86.