Corporate Social Responsibility in the Marketplace

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.

There are conflicting expectations of the nature of a company’s responsibilities to society. However, those companies that undertake what may be termed ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ must decide; what are the actual social responsibilities of these companies? I will present a possible paradigm. Also, I will look at the benefit to the business that employs proper management as compared the business with poor management. This research paper describes my view of corporate social responsibility and compares the social responsibilities of Delta Air Lines and Spirit

Corporate citizenship is commonly defined as ?a company's management of its influences on and relationships with the rest of society? (Marsden 2000: 9). A recent study conducted by Hill and Knowlton found that 79% of Americans consider corporate citizenship when deciding to buy a particular company?s product, 36% of which considered corporate citizenship to be an important factor (Verschoor, 2001: 20). This shows us that by achieving good corporate citizenship, a company?s practices become transparent to the interested public and provide a basis for accountability for the future (Waddock, 2000: 324).

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.

The expectation that businesses behave responsibly and positively contribute to society all while pursuing their economic goals is one that holds firm through all generations. Stakeholders, both market and nonmarket, expect businesses to be socially responsible. Many companies have responded to this by including this growing expectation as part of their overall business operations. There are companies in existence today whose sole purpose is to socially benefit society alongside businesses who simply combine social benefits with their economic goals as their company mission. These changes in societal expectations and thus company purpose we’ve seen in the business community over time often blurs the line of what it means to be socially

Although not all companies are successful at truly embodying what it means to be green, even companies that have been synonymous for contributing pollutants and greenhouse gasses spend millions trying to convince stakeholders that they do. It’s often these last two dimensions of CSR—social and environmental, that either embroil a corporation in controversy or allow it to serve as an exemplar in good ethical business practices.

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.

Archie B. Carroll created a pyramid model to describe the economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility and philanthropic responsibility that a company should have toward the global economy (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2013). Within these four domains, a corporation is expected to be profitable, be legal, be ethical and be a good corporate citizen. There are expectations of the model in which economic, social and environmental responsibilities are fulfilled simultaneously (Shum and Yam, 2011). However, it is not feasible to expect the economic responsibility to automatically translate into the social responsibility aspect. Corporations can be led to engage in social responsibility voluntarily to achieve social good when appropriate legal and ethical influences are established (Shum and Yam, 2011).

For my current event, I choose an article based upon the management topic of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The article I choose was “A Purpose Beyond Profit”, written by Tony Schwartz, for the New York Times in 2014. As the title implies, it looks at businesses practices adopted by corporations that have surpassed just obeying regulatory laws to actually encompassing many sustainability programs to help society, even if means lowering their profits. In a meticulous analysis of the article, “A Purpose Beyond Profit”, I will summarize the main points of the author, show the important factors that support the main idea(s), reveal any holes in the main ideas, and its supporting arguments; further more I will provide counter-arguments to the basis of the article, and will discuss management theories that are applied in businesses today.

Milton Friedman was a 20th century American economist who advocated free-market capitalism. In 1970 he submitted an editorial article entitled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” to the New York Times. In the article, Friedman argues that in free market systems it is nonsensical to make corporate entities adhere to “social responsibilities of business” pushed by activists, as corporations are artificial in nature, and thus do not have any social responsibilities other than to make money for the shareholders of the company. I will argue against this paper and support the claim corporations do in-fact have moral and ethical obligations to more than just their shareholders, and that many individuals have their stakes and livelihoods embedded within the acts of corporations. As well, the idea in the article that corporations are not moral agents has led to unsavory violations of human rights across the world, failing Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, as well as not satisfying Act Utilitarianism. Thus, corporations, and individuals within those corporations, possess considerable ability to make ethical decisions that have great impact to many people, culminating in the truth that corporations have moral status.

Milton Friedman was an American economist, statistician and writer, who had a massive impact on the research agenda of the economics profession. His famous words “the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, Milton. 1970) led to many controversial debates on whether businesses should have ethics or if profit should be their main goal. Corporate social responsibility has many definitions, as its interpretation is quite loose, so I have chosen one that relates the most to this essay, given by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, in 2000: “Corporate social

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.

There are also four perspectives of social responsibility that is key as well. The first responsibility is economic responsibility. This is the perspective that says the social responsibility of an organization is to make profits and provide attractive returns on investment. This is an important responsibility to their employees as well as their supplier’s employees because this brings in the profits which is what gives them the money to be able to pay their workers as well as keep the business running properly. The second responsibility is the legal responsibility. This is the perspective that the social responsibility of an organization is to obey laws and public policy. This is also an important responsibility because if the company doesn’t obey the laws and public policy, the state could shut the company down leaving hundreds of thousands of workers jobless. The third responsibility is ethical responsibility. This is the perspective that an organization should respond to the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Just as the second responsibility, this works just like it. Not following this responsibility could shut the business down, leaving many people jobless. The last responsibility is the philanthropic responsibility. This is the perspective that organizations

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