Corporate 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. Two Views When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose. Main Arguments Supporters of the “narrow” view claim that corporations naturally have a main purpose to produce a profit. ... ... middle of paper ... ...bility. This is determined by laws and other corporation’s links with the society. References Definition: Corporate Social Responsibility. (2011). From BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved October 22, 2011, from Google.com. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp- business.html Hopkins, M. (2004, May). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Issues Paper. In Social Science Research Network. Retrieved October 22, 2011, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908181 Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2011). Moral Issues in Business (Eleventh ed., pp. 230-244). Wadsworth Publishing.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a movement that aims to promote a greater awareness of how business activities and decisions influence corporate environment, stakeholders, and society in general. Adam Lindgreen and Valerie Swaen’s article “Corporate Social Responsibility” addresses this broad topic in a more narrow direction of CSR implementation as it discusses the most important stages of this process. While this article relies only on the previous research, it provides unique insights into CSR and even challenges the common views of this concept as the authors thoroughly analyze their secondary sources.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a word that is bandied about with really little regard as to what the full implications actually are. Consider a few thoughts: What exactly is a corporation’s responsibility? Who are the arbiters of CSR for corporations? What does it cost to “rein in” corporations? Why are some companies held to a different standard than others?
1993): 55-65. In Beachamp, Tom L., and Norman Bowie (eds). Ethical Theory and Business. 7th edition.
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.... ...
...s and lack of rigor. One of the most asked questions is: What does it mean to say that a "business" has responsibilities? A corporation is an artificial thing meaning it has artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot have responsibilities, even in a vague sense. When trying to understand what it means to have responsibilities, we have to examine the doctrine of the social responsibility of corporations and ask who it precisely refers to. There is no tangible responsibility that can be placed upon an inanimate building. Presumably the individuals who are to be responsible are the bosses, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives because they are in-charge.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be defined as the "economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time" (Buchholtz, 2014, p. 32) The basic principles of corporate social responsibility consists of organizations that has the moral, ethical, and philanthropic duties to not only to earn a profit for investors, but they must also comply with the laws and standards set for businesses as well. Today’s CSR requires organizations to assume a much broader spectrum of their responsibilities that includes not only the stockholders, but employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, state, and federal governments, special interest and a variety of environmental groups as well. (Sharma, 2014)
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Business ethics (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.
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.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is similar to an individual’s social responsibility. An individual who is socially responsible is aware of how their decisions affect the environment. Corporate social responsibility can be define as “how well a company meets its economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities” (Peter & Sarah, p. 51). Corporate social responsibility holds businesses accountable to stakeholders such as consumers, in areas of concern such as environmental factors, community and society in general. As a result successful CSR initiatives creates a sustainable company in all ways: financially, ethically, environmentally, and socially. The moral problem with CSR is based on the belief that “CSR would be a cost that would be higher than the perceived benefits. By financially supporting “charity” based initiatives, firms are not performing their fiduciary duty to their stockholders” (Peter & Sarah, p. 49).
“Businesses who use company resources to benefit employees and the community [over and above] that of simply paying wages and taxes are violating their moral obligations to maximise profits for shareholders.” (PHI2043F Essay Topic) The aforementioned statement is one of many responses resulting from the discussion of what corporate social responsibility (in the realm of academics) is. Corporate social responsibility (in the realm of academics) is defined as “the discussion about the moral obligations of a business” (PHI2403F Week 3 Slides, 2014) and it introduces the theory of “how business should weigh the interests of its shareholders against the interests of other stakeholders.” through three differing models; The Narrowest View, Shareholder Primacy (also known as the moral minimum model) and The Stakeholder Model. Shareholder primacy is a concept whereby stakeholder interests are taken into consideration; however, the shareholders have the top priority over all stakeholders. According to shareholder primacy a business will only act in stakeholders’ interests if it has a legal obligation to do so. The above statement is an adaptation of how business executives may act in a way that violates ‘shareholder primacy’. I disagree with the statement made as I feel that in fact businesses have a moral obligation to serve all stakeholders and not just maximise profit for shareholders. I will be enhancing this position through introducing the models relevant to corporate social responsibility, and by; discussing, evaluating and refuting the two strongest arguments that support the moral minimum model and finally evaluating two arguments that are in favour of the stakeholder model. My position will then be further enhanced by attempting t...
The arguments for and against corporate social responsibility have captured two points of view. Those who believe that organizations should not be concerned about social responsibility base many of their arguments on the costs involved and whether organizations should shoulder those costs on behalf of society. And those who are in favor feel that organizations benefit from society and, therefore, have an obligation to improve it. Although there is no universal agreement, surveys and other reports express that many organizations are, becoming increasingly active in addressing social
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”.
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.
Social responsibility is defined as economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time. Corporate social responsibility means that organizations have moral, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities in addition to their responsibilities to make a positive return on their stakeholders’ investments. By expanding these responsibilities beyond the principal companies can endear themselves to their customers, local communities, suppliers, and all arrays of advocacy groups. Taking on these responsibilities can also have cause critical reactions as well. Companies have to maintain awareness so as not to create negative press with their extracurricular actions.
...can be an arbiter of business responsibility to society through the application of tax incentives or tax credits. In good corporate governance, the management should be able to meet their social responsibilities, these include making sure that their products are not hazardous to people and to the environment, sharing their profits for the good of the community as a natural person or human being would do, donating to social causes, organizing activities to benefit the community.