An Evaluation Of A Company 's Stakeholder Concept Of The Social Agenda And A Business Agenda

I. INTRODUCTION “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” - Mahatma Gandhi The above quote rightly points out the role of environment for the mankind and the responsibility we need to shoulder for its sustenance. We've come a long way in recognizing that and now almost every business has a statute of doing something good for the environment as part of their CSR initiative. But companies who think of the environment as a social responsibility and not as an imperative are not going in the right direction. The global climate changes and the gradual scarcity of resources have come to light as major disruptions in the business environment. These challenges

In recent years, increasing number of customers and businessmen start to concern about the ethical issues in businesses. Although the main purpose of business is to make profits, the social influence of it also appears to be focused by a large proportion of customers and businessmen. Corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is closely connected with this concentration, was put forward in 1953 with the meaning of interacting social, environmental, and economic considerations into the decision-making structures and processes of business (Industry Canada, 2013). Although criticized, there is a business case for CSR because it could enhance customers’ loyalty, improve

or so many years our society has been thinking of forming new creative and innovative businesses, which would be more environmental and customer friendly. Nowadays a large number of different companies follow the social, ethical, as well as moral consequences when it comes to their decision making. One of the relatively new concepts involving economic and social concerns is Corporate Social Responsibility. Many of us apply this approach not only at work, but also in everyday life without even recognizing.

In business, Anne Lawrence and James Weber (2014) identify enlightened self-interest as a corporation’s recognition that using corporate resource to serve others, including customers, employees, and the community as a whole, is in the best interest of the company. This social responsibility enhances the company’s image within the community, which increases both customer loyalty and satisfaction of employees. Some of the ways that businesses serve others is through philanthropy and backing environmental sustainability. Within his lecture on ethics and corporate responsibility, Dr. Kahlib Fischer (n.d.) encourages the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in that it provides mutual benefit to both the organization and the community.

These are all important strategic considerations. Those considerations will help the companies to get short term and direct "payback". I think most of the companies have a good intention in implementation CSR. I think there is still two more things missing or not mentioned that will contribute heavily in the success of CSR program and the organization will get benefit faster. The first thing drive from the Social licenses to operate concept. Yes this concept related to the organization operation side but in similar way your CSR programs should watch the

I attended the January 29th event Environmental Advocacy; We are all in this together. Guest speaker Gabe Wing director of environmental health at Herman Miller Inc. held a presentation about corporate social responsibility (CSP) with examples from companies like his. He focused on sustainability by explaining why it is good for business. He also mentioned global warming and described how, unaddressed, its consequences will keep Herman Miller’s furniture and other products far from consumer priorities. Then, Mr. Wing harkened back to the presentation’s subtitle We are all in this together by recognizing achievements like Dell’s Ocean Plastics Initiative. He was very clear about the importance of spreading a message of shared duties.

CSV is a concept that refocuses the view of corporation on doing good; the approach leads to an inclusive perspective on of those in the lower income level or the bottom of the pyramid (BOP). Analyzing the whole concept reveals parallels with the models championed by C.K. Prahalad in his book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, the future success of a business and the success of entities or individuals that push for social change is dependent on the cooperation of the two entities or the convergence of charitable institutions and for profit institutions to solve key

Businesses are also seeing the value as “Societies’ growing expectations and pressures that business should assume a more significant responsibility for solving social problems have created a new standard of corporate performance – one that encompasses both moral and financial dimensions. The argument in the above is that values – personal and corporate – not only have intrinsic and social worth but are also a source of economic value for the company.” (XXXXX.) Many businesses look to move beyond traditional philanthropy and create economic and social value through collaborative problem solving with nonprofits. As organizations look to focus on results they’ve expanded their analysis to include the “triple bottom

Twenty years ago and earlier, with rare exceptions, the only corporate charity was a bit of gifting by the CEO, perhaps to the arts. Ten years ago, corporate philanthropy and volunteerism became popular as an a la carte add on. In these posts from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), I am turning the spotlight on the avant garde of CSR: companies that make community and global problem-solving part of their business platform, thus making "doing good" sustainable.

The economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s article published in The New York Times Magazine in 1970 titled, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” (NYTimes, 1970) set tone for companies all across the country and all over the world. Companies start to turn in profits that shattered all charts and stock markets. Beginning in 1960s to 1990s, Capitalism had won the cold war with its arch rival the Soviet Union had withered away into the oblivion and the companies that turned focused in profits could not have been more right, or so everybody thought. With the latest economic recession in 2008, everything came tumbling down on the front door of once Wall Street and brought the world economy to halt. Today the social responsibility of Business is defined by economic development, the environment investment and human rights.

In this week’s journal, the discussion focuses on corporate social responsibility and how companies like Citibank, N.A. are managing to navigate its organizational culture to fully embrace it. In addition, we will discuss potential right versus right as well as right versus wrong scenarios that could emerge under my leadership. I worked for ten years and have written about various aspects of the organization for several courses. Therefore, my knowledge of Citi’s performance and history continues to expand. Citi is quite adept at communicating its goals, vison and mission to its employees as well as clients. All of which are considered stakeholders.

The importance of corporate social responsibility to companies has been widely debated. Companies eager for maximizing the profit with limited cost. Facing the complexity economic environment and growing competition, as well as the short-term performance pressures from shareholders, companies have no idea but force to restructure the business, reduce the labor force and relocate the business to lower-cost regions. However, are they really helpful to maintain the competitive advantages and gain the sustainable profit? Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, in their January/ February 2011 Harvard Business Review article - Creating Shared Value (CSV) explains what a growing companies have come to recognize - companies can derive a

Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR, is an initiative companies voluntarily take part in to give back to the local and global community. There are numerous domains of corporate social responsibility, such as environmental conservation and sustainability, diversity and equal employment opportunity, and volunteer service projects and charitable giving. The number of companies embracing the practice of corporate social responsibility has increased in recent years, as the public has formulated higher expectations that companies act responsibly. Numerous companies have given in to this pressure and have adopted policies to show the public that they value the different domains of CSR. However, despite this attempt to become more socially responsible, companies may excel in some areas while they lag in others, leading to a mixture of both positive and negative CSR within the same company. Daimler is one company that has both positive and negative CSR practices, with the company leading by

corporate leadership to “look beyond its traditional bottom line, but at the social implications of its business.”

Corporate social responsibility is paramount in any organization. It involves the need for a corporate organization to go beyond what may be required by regulators or environmental protection groups and manage the business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. Corporate take it upon themselves and come up with an initiative to assess and take responsibility for the company's effects on the environment and impact on social welfare. This may involve incurring short-term costs that do not provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promotes positive social and environmental change (Crowther & Aras 2008). Our founder Bill Gates has set an exemplary model through the creation of Bill Gates & Melinda Foundation that has lifted the lives of many poverty stricken people throughout the world. It is in line with this noble initiative by our founder that we are working to uphold the precedents set by our founder that we are setting out to launch the proposed (CRS) dubbed “The Green Hills Initiative”.