Corporate Social Responsibility And How Corporations Are Socially Responsible

Social Responsibility can be broken down into 3 parts, the companies benefit to society, how they follow policies and their performance of their obligations. It is hard to decipher who and what companies are socially responsible to. A company decides what they are doing if it is going to benefit shareholders or stakeholders. The shareholders are those who are in the company that benefit from it by maximizing the profits. On the other hand, the stakeholders are those who use the company and are impacted directly by what the company does. These people include customers, suppliers and the community. Companies receive more positive feedback

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.

One of the main reasons corporations should be socially responsible is because consumers, one of the major shareholders, expect better business practices to the extent that they

In 1970, Milton Friedman published an essay in which he argued that corporations’ only social responsibility ought to be making a profit for its shareholders as long as it is engaged in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Brusseau, 2012. page. 676). Moreover, Mr. Friedman also argued that only people can have social responsibilities because they control their actions and corporations don’t. However, we see that corporations are engaged in businesses such as making loans, signing contracts, acquiring licenses, creating jobs and services. They act as persons. If corporations had no responsibilities people would not invest in them; for that reason, I believe corporations should have legal and ethical responsibilities.

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.

Corporations are the result of endangering the pollinator species and super pests. They are also responsible for the abuse to the animals and the employees that provide us with the nourishment on our plates. Again, we saw in the film, Food Inc., that farmers were barely scraping by, forced by corporate to take out loans to purchase machinery and requiring to treat their farm animals in a certain way.

Paying taxes is wonderful and all but it is not the only social responsibility that a corporation should have.

(Allen 37-42) The decision in Dodge v Ford Motor Company 170 NW 668 (Michigan 1919) supports this theory since Ford was required to distribute some of the company’s earnings to its shareholders. Proponents of this theory would argue that corporations do not have a responsibility to anybody other than their shareholders, i.e., the firm should focus solely on their income and increasing shareholder’s wealth. Interestingly, there are not many organizations in modern society that do not give to charitable/political organization or support the environment, but that does not mean that this model is obsolete and/or not prevalent. For example, many believe that the Foxconn Technology Group, the manufactures of many Apple products, focuses primarily on wealth maximization and not social welfare. The firm is focused on efficiency and has many assembly lines to manufacture their products. The firm is notorious for working employees very long hours. Many employees have committed suicide and the company often suffers from employee riots. Apple often has to come to the defense of their manufacturer of these social issues. The company said “Apple is committed to the highest standards of social responsibility across our worldwide supply chain…We insist that all of our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever our products are

A corporation is an artificial person and therefore cannot be socially responsible. The goal of the corporation is to maximize profits and returns as rewards to its shareholders for their risk taking while conforming to the basic rules of the society, such as law and ethical customer, except those organizations established for eleemosynary purpose.

Company X’s attitude towards being socially responsible is being clouded by its desire to maintain high profits. With its current actions, Company X is catering to a select group of its primary stakeholders such as the investors and shareholders. They seem to be forgetting that the customers, employees, and the community are also primary stakeholders. We will look into the scenario and dissect the company’s actions to show how they are alienating the community that will ultimately determine their reputation and profitability.

A corporation that says it is socially responsible, claims that they are concerned for society's welfare; which also includes the environment, because now days, we are a lot more concerned about our environment and how everything affect it. The corporation will make sure to insure those values within the company and also to its partners. ("Social responsibility in Marketing," 2012 - 1998) Also, if a corporation says it is ethically responsible and it really is, it shows to their customers and partners their integrity

In this type of private sector environment, the individual responsibility of the corporate executive must only protect the interests of the corporation, as well as the profits that need to made to sustain this type of private capitalist institution. Therefore, making money for the corporation will improve the wealth of the company, which will then makes it possible to employ people in society and share in this wealth as a social benefit. In this manner, the legal and ethical “obligation” of the corporate executive must never take responsibility for what the corporation may do to threaten social stability (the environment,

Should firms try to meet the expectations to enhance the the environment and support the community and still meet the financial interest of the shareholders or are they just to focus on the profits of a firm? Consumers and society believe that the firm hold a Corporate Social Responsibility to use their resources to benefit society. Then there are others that feel like the firms have already met their social responsible by providing the community with job and tax revenue that they did not have before. It is very easy to see both sides and argue either way. This debate begun in 1932 with opposing articles (Dodd 1932; Berle 1932) in a Harvard Law Review symposium on “For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?’ (Reinhardt, F., Stavins, R., & Vietor, R, 2016).

Every corporation or company is in the business of making a profit. The market is a huge contributing factor that drives corporations to either be socially responsible or not. If making a profit was not a factor, most people would want to be socially responsible because it’s the right thing to do. We will discuss the meaning of corporate social responsibility, how the environment affects the decisions of being socially responsible and my personal experiences.

It is a central tenet of advocates of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) that corporations receive a social sanction from society that requires that they, in return, contribute to the growth and development of that society. There is little argument as to the existence of this sanction but considerable debate as to whether it requires more of the corporation than the obvious: enhancing the society by creating and delivering products and services consumers want, providing employment and career opportunities for employees, developing markets for suppliers, and paying taxes to governments and returns to shareholders and other claimants on the rents generated by the corporation. For those with a narrow conception