Essay on Csr in Apple Inc.

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

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.

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 four components of corporate social responsibility are Economic responsibilities by being profitable to the company, Legal responsibilities by obeying the law or playing by the rule, Ethical responsibilities by being ethical in carrying business and Philanthropic responsibilities by being a good corporate citizen and also by improving the quality and standard of living of the community and society. Economic performance is important as the foundation of

Corporations can be large or small but they all have some sort of ethical impact on their employees, shareholders, customers, community, and surrounding environments. Richard DeGeorge writes, “We can speak of corporations having moral responsibilities to act in certain ways, and they are morally responsible for the consequences of their actions on people.” (p. 200). Large corporations are comprised of the board of directors, management, and their workers. They also deal with suppliers, customers, and have competitors. This essay will examine the moral responsibilities within a corporation.

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.

Business corporations are a dog eat world. Business is made up of many aspects from political, social, and environmental responsibilities to those of ethics and responsibility. Every business and major corporation has to deal with these in a much different way. For example, small business’s need more of the social responsibility in order to have more trade and an increased profit. For the major corporations the focus is on what is going on in politics, social, and environmental due to the economy or the state of their countries.

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.

This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees,

In light of the recent scandals that rose around big multinationals such as Enron and WorldCom, it has become evident that reform in the traditional corporate operations and objectives was to be encompassed in the organisations corporate strategies. Indeed throughout the years, companies main objectives were defined primarily as being economic objectives, Multinationals developed with sight of profit maximisations regardless to the other incentives, Friedman considered that to be the foundation for a well-managed company, it was further considered that the financing of any other sort of social corporate activities rather unnecessary. The expenses were regarded as expenditures for the owners and investors; this was a time where shareholders rights were regarded as conflicting with other constituents namely the employees, creditors, customers or the community in general. However this interpretation is seen as rather inadequate due to the nature of the amalgamated relation between both constituents. Stakeholders in modern corporate doctrine are considered as a core apparatus for the well functioning of a business. It is however often argued that the only way for a corporation to achieve better results and maximise its profits is to include other people in the process, individuals or organisations with direct or indirect interest in the well performance of the company, that is the reason why modern regulations and codes include a number of stakeholders other than the

Recent years, encouraged by cultural and economic globalization, the world market is growing rapidly. With the market becoming increasingly mature and rational, corporations not only pay

‘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,

“Corporate finance theory, teaching and the typically recommended practice at least in the US are all built on the premise that the primary goal of a corporation should be the maximization of shareholder value.”

Companies with extensive responsibilities even argue about the system in pursuing social responsibility of business. According to Ulrich Steger, the company should prioritize the shareholders’ incessant interest but they should also be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environmental goals that the public expects them to be. Without a doubt, companies’ primary goal is to earn a profit. Emphasizing on profitability affects the fundamental values in the company, its morality. Companies ignore the ethics just to earn a mountainous income. This often causes extensive repercussions in the companies.