Analysis Of William Allen 's ' The Dodge Brothers '

Because corporations are established to profit and shareholders invest money with expectations of a greater return, managers cannot be given a directive to be “socially responsible” without providing specific criteria of checks and balances to which needs to adhere. Therefore, it is imperative to the success of a corporation for managers to not act solely but rather to act within the policies of the shareholders.

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

Many believe that business entities should have an ethical duty to be socially responsible, to work towards increasing its positive effects on society while decreasing its negative effects. Many organizations look for opportunities to be socially responsible while also creating shareholder wealth.

There's nothing to say that a company that is highly socially responsible today may not become less so tomorrow. It's a little like physical exercise. If you don't keep pushing yourself, you lose the gains - may even become a little flabby. For example:A true story: A woman puts her umbrella on the floor of her cubicle after returning from lunch. The next day she discovers that the umbrella is gone. Fast forward one week. The woman sees a colleague walking around with her umbrella. When asked about it, the colleague replies, "Well, it didn't have anyone's name on it, so I took it." From some perspectives, this may either be an indicate a significant lack of personal social responsibility.

The hazy boundary between society and corporation will always be a source of tension. Those organizations leave social problems and cause huge environmental destruction. From outsourcing layoffs in the U.S., bankrupted suppliers, environmental destruction, to impoverished workers who are left without anything having to be on welfare in order to maintain the life of their families. On a better note, numerous organizations either concerned for the planet, giving recognition of what is better for its employees, are giving a better way of doing things in a corporation. Knowing about the history of these companies, they are working to build a better sense of ethics. Demonstrating that socially, bringing policies into affect can also bring profit as well.

Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.) is a theory practiced in the business sphere since fifty years. It refers to the duty of business organizations to adopt certain activities that will benefit the society in some way. Charity, health-awareness campaigns are few examples that a business undertakes to fulfil its objectives of C.S.R. According to this ideal, it is important for various corporations today to undertake such social activities, apart from merely focusing on their objective of profit maximization. But, is it an obligation that is most important than other objectives of business? This thought further leads us to another significant question – In contemporary settings, should corporations be guided by the concept of C.S.R.?

The answer to the questions of Why does a business exist? and What purposes does/should it serve within society? are not agreed upon by all. The concept that companies having social obligations beyond their economic benefit is controversial (Chandler & Werther Jr., 2014). This paper will briefly examine the viewpoint of the well-known economist, Milton Friedman, whose assertions have been very influential in the debate surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR). Arguments, both in support of, and against Friedman’s assertions, will be presented along with examples of two organizations having contrasting attitudes regarding CSR. Lastly, the paper will examine three organizations whose literal adherence to Friedman’s view has led to the rationalization of unethical behaviors.

In April 2015, Corporate Responsibility Magazine released their annual list of the most socially responsible companies in the United States. The top ten companies included Microsoft, Hasbro, Johnson & Johnson, Xerox Corp, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Intel Corp, and the Campbell Soup Company (Corporate Responsibility Magazine, 2015). Corporate accountability was measured in seven categories: financial, employee relations, governance, human rights, environmental, climate change, and philanthropy (Adams, 2015). Microsoft topped the list because of transparency, accountability, and excellent employee relations while Hasbro came in second because of their environmental commitments to reduce landfill waste by 50% and gas emissions by 20% by the end of 2020 (Adams, 2015). Corporations rarely make the news due to social responsibility but often make the front page because of corruption, fraud, or general lack of concern for the public and the environment. Corporate Accountability International generates a list of the top corporate offenders of social responsibility that included Monsanto, SeaWorld, Walmart, and JP Morgan Chase (Troutman, 2015). Monsanto has been targeted due to their promotion, support and development of genetically modified corps and SeaWorld was recently exposed for their cruel treatment of orca whales at their parks (Troutman, 2015).

It is overwhelming how corporations have embedded a social responsibility in their mission statements and company objectives. This leaves us with one assertion that is that corporations do have some level of obligation towards society’s morality; however, the corporation itself is not a moral agent (Klaus M. Leisinger). The discussion that follows is about corporations being moral agents or otherwise; however I will reach a conclusion that corporations do have an obligation that extends beyond obeying the law; evens so this obligation have been derived from the corporations quest for profit making. Corporation’s obligation

Corporations address these issues by donating money, products, or services to charities – a temporary solution, but between the need to satisfy investors who want to maximize short-term profits and critics who demand higher levels of social responsibility, companies can only give so much before having to justify the charitable expenditures against their needs as a company.

Advocates of social welfare argue that firms are obliged to act in a socially responsible manner. Dodd (xxx?) also argued that businesses must engage in social services, even at the expense of profits, in order to serve the best interests of employees, creditors, customers, and other stakeholders, as it appears that there exists a positive relationship between social and financial performance (xxx?), and socially responsible business practices affect all aspects of business operations and contribute significantly to corporate productivity and profitability (Website of Business for Social Responsibility). In other words, a corporation should engage with social interests in order to fulfil its social responsibility and to maximise long-run profits.

Corporations’ measured success by financial means only undermines the global impact companies can have on society. With the evolution of business into a global market, society requires corporations to emphasize social welfare beyond simple philanthropic contributions. A new initiative called Corporate Social Responsibility blends philanthropy, social initiatives, corporate responsibility, and corporate policy for the overall benefits to various facets of society, including but not limited to investors, employees, and local communities.

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

There are quite a lot theories related to corporate social responsibility, and enlightened self-interest theory and managerial stakeholder theory are two major theories that prevent the corporation from taking their social responsibility. Enlightened self-interest theory held the opinion that corporate social responsibility will be taken and only will be taken when the corporation can be benefited by the activity and shareholders’ value can be increased, and this theory inevitably has a great impact on most of the

It has been a long time since I defined the most fundamental and strong motivation of corporations is maximizing business profit. Even after the proposal of corporation social responsibility, I assumed that only the result of unharmed business operation can make company start to consider social responsibilities and until they increased their profits they will remain no more than a bystanders from external issues be it social or environmental.