Defining Best Practice:
Corporate responsibility is ultimately about the reasons and ways in which a company sets its values, moral standards, ethical considerations and states an organizational purpose that is based in greater societal good. After this course, I believe the “best practice” of corporate responsibility in a high tech global economy leverages several course methodologies but ultimately 1) the tenets of Gilligan’s Ethics of Care model which balances care for self (or corporation) and care for others, 2) takes triple bottom approach to running a company considering financial performance, social practices and environmental impact and 3) ultimately one defined by Porter and Kramer’s Corporate Shared Value (“CSV”) where economic success is based on a model where societies’ needs are addressed and improved. CSV allows the self-interest necessary for a company to thrive in a competitive and fast changing environment. At the same time, CSV considers that the end game is about creating shared value. Altogether, my definition of the “best practice” of corporate responsibility happens when the company’s bottom line and society’s bottom line are simultaneously served because the societal needs are also at the center of the company’s profit driven goals.
Gilligan’s Ethics of Care model can be made a core part of a company’s values and culture and should be a driving component of a company’s corporate responsibility approach. Gilligan’s model, aligned also to Kohlberg’s
Corporate Social Responsibility is an important term that few know of. This term stands for everything that’s moral, from using less harmful chemicals in their products to protecting the rights of the workers and the society we live in. However, some companies do not live by this word. This, coupled with the massive amount of consumers buying their products, can cause a multitude of problems not only for the company workers, but to the world itself. As such, companies should become more aware of their effects on the world around them and change their moral responsibilities to treat their workers more humanely, protect the lives of the people in their towns, cities and countries and save the environment from further destruction and pollution.
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
In (Cohen, 2008), the author quotes (Drucker, 1946) in noting that “Every organization must assume full responsibility for its impact on its employees, the environment, customers, and whomever and whatever it touches”. According to (Cohen, 2008; Drucker, 1946), that is the very definition of social responsibility. There are many ambiguities surrounding the concept of social responsibility; everything from definition to terminology, even what actions constitute responsible behavior is unsettled (Vogel, 2005). For purposes of this paper we will use the term corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Businesses, specifically larger corporations, play a major role in what occurs in society therefore, they are responsible to their stakeholders not only to pursue economic goals but the greater social good as well. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) means that a corporation should act in a way that enhances society and its inhabitants and be held accountable for any of its actions that affect people, their communities, and their environment. (Lawrence, 2010). Social responsibility is becoming the norm so much so that some businesses have incorporated it into their business model. There are three components of the bottom line of social
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 social responsibility (CSR) has become an increasingly accepted topic for both mainstream practice and academic discussion. It focuses on moving organizations away from a single bottom-line philosophy (economic) to encouraging organizations to undertake roles traditionally seen as beyond the scope of the profit-seeking organization such as environmental protection, supporting education and involvement in the community. One of the most commonly referenced terms for this is the “triple bottom line” (economic, social and environmental). This bottom focuses on reducing the organization’s negative impact on the world and it helps to improve their positive image.
Once a business realizes that it has gotten wrapped up in maximizing profit that it neglect ethics of care, the next step is to readjust and realign its core values internally and be more responsible to the environment in which they operate by showing societal care. Therefore, the aim of this report is to address the importance of realigning the business with ethics of care through involving in CSR activities, and as well as showing how these actions can impact on a company’s performance even if it may be demoralized in the society.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is something that affects all companies and should be an active factor in the company’s decision making. It is something all corporations need to care about. CSR is when business’ or corporations take part in an initiative or campaign for a cause that will benefit society and/or in some way make the world a better place (Taylor, 2015). Initially, Corporate Social Responsibility started to take shape around the 1950’s, but some say that it dates all the way back to the 1800s, the idea of CSR was seen (Carroll, 2007). One may think that because it is dated so long ago, it doesn’t have an important impact today nevertheless, it is proven that Corporate Social Responsibility is a pathway for entities to self benefit as they are in the process of benefitting society.
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).
Continuous changes in the world’s economy have forced companies to go beyond their commercial purposes and pay attention to the importance of social actions. One of the first scholars to initiate the requirement of social initiatives for corporate enterprises was Bowen (1953). He argued that businessmen should aim broader than just maximizing profits for shareholders and should contribute to the society as well (Carroll, 1999). Eventually, more scholars performed research on a firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) and tried to define this new insight. A few decades later, Elkington (1997) introduced the term ‘Triple Bottom Line” (Carroll, 1999). He referred to three dimensions that could be impacted by a company’s system and policy,
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.
Examine Apple’s current position on the company’s ethical and social responsibilities, and determine whether or not the company has met these responsibilities. Provide two (2) examples that support your position.
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
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility’, (3rd edition) Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford university press, pp.51-60
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.