Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How important is corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility corporate governance
Corporate Social Responsibility eassy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How important is corporate social responsibility
Corporate And Social Responsibility In recent years, Corporate and Social Responsibility has become an ever increasing concern and source of community debate. It is now socially accepted that corporations have some ongoing responsibility, though sometimes ignored, to set a good example, make decisions based on social good and on ensuring positive environmental practices. The two articles reviewed both focus on this corporate responsibility but they have very different approaches and draw very different conclusions. John Darley's article "How Organisations Socialize Individuals into Evildoing" summarises some of the factors and forces involved in creating socially negative corporate scenarios and then goes on to detail how individuals are heavily pressured by internal corporate culture, management structures and corporate agendas and can then go on to propagate the same. This article examines the motivating factors and draws some alarming and negative conclusions, implying that this corporate mentality of potential social abuse is systemic to capitalism. In contrast, David Birch's article "Social, economic and environmental capital" mentions some of the basic aspects for what is required to achieve positive corporate citizenship, looks at some of the obstacles involved and then suggests changing how we view and perceive corporations from previous models, in an effort to better understand how to achieve these changes. Darley suggests that all corporations "have the potential to drift into harm-doing" (p.221) because the driving motivation of all corporations is "on corporate profitability" (p.221) citing numerous cases of when these motivations resulted in disastrous effects. These examples and illustrations are eff... ... middle of paper ... ... or a pessimist like Darley, I think the majority of us have come to appreciate that Corporate and Social Responsibility is not only desirable but necessary. The birth of corporate change has begun, perhaps slowly and painfully at first, but with increasing social pressure it will continue to grow and hopefully result in a better economic, social and corporate environment for all. D. Birch (2002). Social, Economic and Environmental Capital. Corporate Citizenship in a New Economy. Deakin University, Melbourne J.M. Darley (2005). How Organizations Socialize Individuals into Evildoing
Duane Windsor, via the aforementioned article regarding the future of social responsibility, purports “there are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices (pg. 225).” Windsor first provides a historical reflection of social responsibility beginning in the Progressive Era through the twentieth century and concludes with predictions for the future of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility, although not widely discussed or defined until post World War II, can be dated back to Ancient Rome as citizens exhibited a sense of civic responsibility. Andrew Carnegie, a man now compared to modern business tycoons/philanthropists such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, published this concept in the 19th century. Windsor does note, however, Carnegie’s philanthropic acts and published views followed his extensive success and wealth as a business mogul. Despite early literature discussing the importance of businesses responsibility to societal success rather than solely on shareholder profits, Windsor shares his interpretation of “anti-responsibility trends” in recent literature. He emphasizes, throughout this article, a concern regarding “wealth-oriented practices” dominating the future of corporate social responsibility. Windsor reviews prominent corporate social responsibility theorists who all contributed greatly to the distinctions between responsibility and responsiveness businesses have to ...
Of the many possible ethical dilemmas that people could face in the business world, the article: “The ‘Do Whatever It Takes’ Attitude Gone Wrong” portrays particular ethical situations in todays business world that are very common: poor social responsibility and its negative effects. Social responsibility is considering what affects business decisions and products have on society. The article reveals what goes on behind the scenes at a business in terms of poor ethical decision making and how often it occurs. It mainly focuses on how business decisions are made without consideration
The common consensus within the business field is that businesses have a social responsibility to protect and improve the societies they affect. Social responsibility is the belief that businesses and their employees have a duty to act in a manner that benefits their environments and society. The concept of social responsibility stems from ethics, which are simply the moral principles that guide a person’s behavior. However, despite this, it is clear to scholars, researchers, experts, and businessmen alike that sometimes ethics and responsibility are thrown out the window in favor of cutting costs and increasing corporate profits. This tendency for otherwise good businesses to act in badly is known as the Lucifer effect, and is a very real
To supply the wants and needs of a consumer, society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.” (Santayana, George. Is The Tyranny Of Shareholder Value Finally Ending? So before we go into greater detail on the different perspectives related to social responsibility, one might question the meaning of social responsibility. It is generally agreed that social responsibility is defined as the business obligation to make decisions that benefit society.... ...
The term “ethical business” is seen, by many people, as an oxymoron. This is because a business’s main objective is to make as much money as possible. Making the most money possible, however, can often lead to unethical actions. Companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Satyam have been the posterchildren for how corporations’ greed lead to unethical practices. In recent times however, companies have been accused of being unethical based on, not how they manage their finances, but on how they treat the society that they operate in. People have started to realize that the damage companies have been doing to the world around them is more impactful and far worse than any financial fraud that these companies might be engaging in. Events like the BP oil
In recent years, companies are becoming socially responsible and now stakeholders almost expect a company to have CSR policies. Therefore, in twentieth century, corporate social responsibility (CSR) became an important development in public life (Barnett, ND).Corporate social responsibility is defined as “the ways in which an organisation exceeds the minimum obligations to stakeholders specified through regulation and corporate governance” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). Stakeholders can be defined as “those individuals or groups who depend on the organisation to fulfil their own goals and on whom, in turn, the organisation depends” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). There are many purposes for this essay, the first purpose is to descried the key principles of corporate social responsibility and explain their importance for stakeholders. Secondly, is to show how far this company follows those principles in order to be accountable to at least three of its stakeholders. In this essay, three stakeholders, environment, customers and employees will be evaluated respectively and the key principles of the stakeholders will be examined.
An organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) drives them to look out for the different interests of society. Most business corporations undertake responsibility for the impact of their organizational pursuits and various activities on their customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment. With the high volume of general competition between different companies and organizations in varied fields, CSR has become a morally imperative commitment, more than one enforced by the law. Most organizations in the modern world willingly try to improve the general well-being of not only their employees, but also their families and the society as a whole.
Milton Friedman presents a compelling argument in “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits” by arguing that businesses need to focus only on increasing their profits and integrating social responsibility will only hurt them as a company. Since “only people can have responsibilities” (Friedman 52), Friedman argues that businesses as a whole do not have any type of real responsibilities because there is not a singular person for these responsibilities to fall on. Corporate executives are people as well and may feel they have social responsibilities to society but these “are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business” (51). In terms of corporations, the businessmen are the ones that hold the responsibility of the company. Friedman argues that the only responsibility these managers hold is to those who own the corporation, the shareholders. If the individuals themselves want to contribute to social responsibility they must do it with their own money in their personal lives, but they should not use social responsibility in
The problem that was investigated consisted of a question that Milton Friedman posed in one of his articles, which was featured in The New York Times Magazine in 1970. The question was, “What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities” (Friedman, 2007, p. 173)? Friedman (1970) elaborated on how businesses cannot have assigned responsibilities. Furthermore, he described how groups or individuals should be the only ones that can hold responsibilities, not businesses. He stated that associating responsibilities with the word business is too ambiguous. I will examine three discussion questions and three compare and contrast questions which Jennings (2009) posed in a case study that is related to Friedman’s (1970) article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”.
Business organizations regularly run into demands from various stakeholders groups when conducting day-to-day business. These demands are generated from employees, customers, suppliers, community groups, governments, and shareholders. Thus, according to Goodpaster, any person or group of people that can shape or can be shaped by attainment of the objectives by an organization is considered a stakeholder. Most business organizations recognize and understand their responsibilities to these groups and endeavor to honor and fulfill them. These responsibilities are often communicated to the public by a statement of principles or beliefs. For many business organizations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an essential and integral part of their business. Thus, this paper discusses the two CSR views: the classical view and the stakeholder view. Furthermore, I believe that the stakeholder view has brought ethical concerns to the forefront of businesses, and an argument shall be made that businesses would improve both socially and economically if CSR, guided by God’s love, was integrated into their strategic planning.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.
While the concept of an individual having responsibility is commonly recognized, modern views have lead to the emerging issue of corporate responsibility. Business Directory.com defines corporate social responsibility as, “A company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs, and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources.” But such a concept has been much disputed since at least the 1970’s.
In this section of the report, I will be discussing the meaning of corporate citizenship. I will be explaining how companies can be considered good corporate citizens and taking into thought Corporate Accountability, Corporate Governance and the 3 Pillars of Sustainability, and why companies would need to change the audit model.
Corporate Social Responsibility is an organisation’s obligation to serve the company’s own interest and the one’s of the society. Moreover, Corporate Social Responsibility has a definition of a concept where the companies integrate social and the environmental concerns into their own business operation and also on a basis of voluntary with their interactions they have with the stakeholders. Corporate Social Resp...
Corporations that place an importance on corporate social responsibility usually have an easier experience when dealing with politicians and government regulators. In compare, businesses that present an irresponsible disregard for social responsibility tend to find themselves fending off various reviews and probes, often brought on at the assertion of public service organizations. The more positive the public insight is that a corporation takes social responsibility seriously; the less likely it is that innovative groups will launch public campaigns and claim government inquiries against it.