Corporate Governance And Corporate Social Responsibility Essay

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a very controversial topic. A question that has been debated for the past few decades is; is it corporately viable to introduce social responsibility as a proposed addition to the work ethic of business organisations. As well as, if adopting the framework of corporate social responsibility would yield positive improvements for those organisations.

ITC Ltd.’s strategy plan for compliance with the current acceptable standards or norms relative to social responsibility today is well thought out, especially for a company that sells potentially dangerous products, and try to meet and listen to all demands and laws in place since the start of their business. Even though in 2014 a new bill was passed for the majority of companies to build accountability and also have the government looking over the private sector (Banerjee, 2013). “The CSR provision requires affected companies to spend at least 2 percent of their average net profits made in the preceding three years on CSR” (Banerjee, 2013). Even though this bill has caused a lot of uproar for companies, ITC has actually already been

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘governance’ as ‘the act, manner, fact or function of governing, sway, control’. ‘To govern’ is ‘to rule with authority’, ’to exercise the function of government’, ‘to sway, rule, influence, regulate, determine’, ‘to conduct oneself in some way; curb, bridle (one’s passions, oneself)’, or ‘to constitute a law for’.

The need for clarification on the board requirements for a majority of independent directors as it relates to corporate governance is of great importance and would be discussed in this write up.

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.?

Shared value is a business strategy which focuses on creating overall value while addressing social problems. This concept of management strategy was expressed in the “Creating Shared Value” article by Porter and Kramer. Shared value is not just an aspect of a company’s growth strategy or general business operations. It is well integrated in the way a company operates along with what their goals are as an organization. The value created for a company’s targeted end user also has some sort of social impact which benefits their company purpose. Creating social impact is a company goal and success is measured through creating a shared value network. Porter believes that “The ability to address social issues is integral to profit maximization instead of treated as outside the profit model.” He is addressing that profits are not measured by impact not just monetary gains for the company, we can change our mindset to think of profit in a different way. Profit can be a benefit or some sort of added value. In this approach Porter argues that “Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them.” This relationship is the driving force for a company’s development and future growth, and it goes beyond corporate strategy it also incorporates investments and key stakeholders for each company. Quantifying a monetary figure and amount for social impact may be extremely difficult, however it has progressed with awareness and

The main purpose of this research is to create a link between Organizational Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility. The Organization Culture and the Corporate Social Responsibility affair is a subject every business talks about and I have done my research on Google analysing and finding the correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Culture. Google supports so many people to find information and stay alert of the news. Within couple of years Google has become the world’s number one website for everyone around the world.

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

At Paramount the unitary board exists, where according to the textbook, a unitary board is when a company has a single governing body (Tricker 2009). A non- executive director is defined as a person who is not involved in the day to day management of an organisation but rather in business tasks such as strategic planning, and monitoring of executive directors. An executive director tends to be more involved in the managerial aspects of the company.

Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility’, (3rd edition) Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford university press, pp.51-60

The concept of social responsibility likely has its roots in the Puritans and Quakers teachings of the 16th and 17th centuries. Puritans characterized humanity negatively, believing humankind to be hopelessly sinful. Quakers held a positive view, believing that of there is God (good) inside everyone. According to Heald [1970], corporate managements began to demonstrate social responsibility by considering community welfare as a whole in their goals to maximize profits and shareholders value. Shareholder response to social responsibility became more prominent during the 1980s. Broyles [1998] highlighted the role of shareholder activism, which was responsible for ending U.S. corporations’ involvement in South Africa during Apartheid. As a result, many management teams incorporated corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their management philosophy. At the time, CSR’s benefit to shareholders was debated widely. Those against CSR, used agency theory and the statement by Friedman [1970] which argues that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, known commonly as the shareholder model of business. For investors, CSR can be viewed either through a Puritan or a Quaker lens. They can invest in firms that promote social responsibility (a Quaker approach) or divest in firms that are socially irresponsible (a Puritanical approach). Initially, religious organizations began to shun investing in corporations whose businesses involved

The rise and fall of the Royal Bank of Scotland is characterized by poor corporate governance which allowed for the complete dominance of the executive management over the board of directors and a massive principal-agent problem. Positive social dynamics and the power of weak ties allowed for compliance while intimidation and bullying tactics silenced questions, concerns and opposition. The board’s utter compliancy and borderline negligence enabled rampant, unchecked empire-building at the cost of shareholder value and led to a spiral of unaccountability and gross incompetence. Stakeholders’ loss of confidence from misinformation and misdirection was an inevitability that sealed

This is essay will focus on analyzing how corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences the investor relations of a corporation and whether it is good for the society, using Gasland and FrackNation as examples. In the contemporary society, CSR sounds like a commendatory term for the society. Over decades, it seems like that both the public and the media are trying to encourage corporations to behave more responsibly, and corporations are gradually becoming more socially aware in the contemporary society because they know they cannot afford the consequence of ignoring it. (Bernstein, 2009:606) However, CSR is not always beneficial. One of the major practices of public relations is investor relations, because the concerns of a corporation’s investors can directly relate to its welfare. When the corporations paid more attention on CSR, their investors will inevitably somehow feel ignored. As a public which has real material input to the corporations, investors are seeking for future returns, they want to be treated specially by the corporations that they invest. Also, value too much about CSR can make corporations become the victim of being morally hijacked, which may harm both a corporation’s financial success and the whole society’s harmony.

There are now several concepts of CSR and its definition, along with the meaning across corporations. In my opinion, and according with our textbook in page 11. CSR is about a particular set of business and strategies that deal with social issues. In addition, we can clearly perceive that CSRs application along corporations has increase in the past decade due to the several local, and international regulations in order to enforce business to act responsible.

‘Corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) means that the firm has wider responsibilities in relation to objectives and people apart from the owners or shareholders (Beal and Goyen 2005). These responsibilities are achieved when the firm adapts all of its practices to ensure that it operates in ways that meet, or exceed, the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business. Objectives often associated with CSR include a responsibility to manage natural assets sustainably and not to pollute by chemical discharge, smell, noise, dust or other irritants; fair treatment of employees and ethical attitude towards clients. The other people include employees, customers, suppliers,