Economic Rhetorical Analysis

ABSTRACT. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) field presents not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, which are controversial, complex and unclear. This article tries to clarify the situation, ‘‘mapping the territory’’ by classifying the main CSR theories and related approaches in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as only an instrument for wealth creation, and its social activities are only a means to achieve economic results; (2) political theories, which concern themselves with the power of corporations in society and a responsible use of this power in the

This is a persuasive paper defining various business terms like corporate social responsibility and equal distribution of wealth. The thesis statement does state that the CSR programs are applied in various developed organizations to set an example for small and rising enterprises whereas the anti thesis statement is that there are no moral obligations felt by businesses to be involved in CSR. The financial aspect of CSR activities is also discussed; at times it is thought that involvement of business in any environmental friendly work may lead to higher costs whereas an opposite point of view is that CSR increases long run profit (Aras & Crowther, 2009). Now day’s Triple bottom line concept is aligned with business which is another

However, modern theory known as corporate social responsibility (CSR), has complicated the situation in that stating that companies are not only responsible to its shareholders, but also to the stakeholders which its actions may impact (Freeman 1984). While this may seem to contradict the mantra of profit maximisation, Russo and Perrini (2010) suggest that in today’s conscience-minded society, success is based not only on maximising profit but also on a corporation’s stakeholder relationships, which include social and environmental issues.

I agree with your consequences of economic well being and how it has a large impact on American workers in the lower class since migrant workers will work for less money making them more appealing. In my post I also brought up how migration is often scene as negative however that is not always the case, younger migrants are extremely well educated and productive workers that companies are looking for. I didn’t think of the point of view you mentioned, “If employers are able to pay less for migrant workers, they will have more money to either pay higher wages to more educated works for higher level positions, or retain higher profits” which when you think of it that way migration does not have the negative connotation. Revisiting

CSR has become a large part of a businesses brand image, in the 1950s the primary focus was on businesses ' responsibilities to society and doing good deeds for society. In the 1980s, business and social interest’s became closer and firms became more responsive to their stakeholders. During the 1990s the idea of CSR became almost universally approved, finally in the 2000s, CSR became an important business strategic issue (Rosamaria et al. 2011).

Conventionally in the US, CSR has been well-defined in terms of a charitable model. Businesses earn revenues, unimpeded except by satisfying their responsibility to pay duties. Then they contribute a sure share of the proceeds to generous foundations. It is understood as doing the act for the corporation to obtain any advantage from the philanthropic activities.

Based on my interpretation of CSR, I see it as a voluntary obligation that companies have promised to their stakeholders to fulfill by improving, or at least not harm, the environmental and social wellbeing. When companies engage in CSR, they voluntarily promise to, for example, carry the responsibility to protect the environment and take actions against bribe or other corruptive activities related to their business. It certainly has some positive influences to specific areas based on my knowledge gained from other classes; nevertheless, when judge CSR in the context of total impacts on our society and environment, it is obvious that CSR has failed its mission to lessen the negative impacts of business based on the evidences that provided by the author. Also, since there is a strong positive relationship between CSR behaviors and consumers’ reactions to a firm’s products and services, it seems to me, now, that CSR for the most companies is just a fancy cover that helps them to create or promote a good image and reputation. The recent case that shows the failure of CSR of Volkswagen even make me believe that CSR programs may be just a marketing or public relation exercise for many

The advertisement “Little Money Big Difference” conveys a persuasive message, that by donating only the small amount of five dollars a week can help feed someone in a third world country who has suffered from an extreme drought like Kenya. The advertisement uses pathos (emotional) appeal the most and targets women who spend money on expensive designer bags.

In this article, “The Truth About CSR,” authors Rangan, Chase and Karim stress the importance in aligning a company’s social and environmental activities with its business purpose and values (Rangan, Chase, & Karim, 2015, 41). Outcomes of CSR programs should be a “spillover” and not a primary focus of a business, expressing concern towards social responsibility and corporations failing to contribute to society accordingly (Rangan, Chase, Karim, 2015, 42). There is a great deal of importance in companies refocusing their CSR activities on a primary goal and in providing an organized process for bringing consistency and discipline to CSR strategies (42). Rangan, Chase and Karim want corporations to understand why it is important for them to evaluate their CSR activities and refocus them towards the goal of reinforcing the firm’s societal and environmental actions, while also ensuring their actions add to the overall purpose and values of the corporation. According to the authors, even though

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.?

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.

Corporations are encouraged to conduct their activities in an ethically responsible manner, however neither the corporate world nor academia has produced a single – all encompassing definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The basic problem is that there are too many self-serving definitions that often lean toward the specific interests of the entities involved (Van Marrewijk, 2003). There has even been a quantitative study conducted on the many definitions of the term (Dahlsrud, 2006).

In conclusion, Carroll suggested that “four kinds of social responsibilities constitute total CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Furthermore, these four categories or components of CSR might be depicted as a pyramid…the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical and be a good corporate citizen.” (1991, p41-44). Apparently, Bell and Rogers have reached the top of the pyramid, as a result, CSR is becoming a new field for them to counterbalance. It has been said that “Fierce competition is usually better news than no competition, at least you know there’s something worth fighting over.” The public would like to appreciate the more effective competitions between them; moreover, the markets must be rational to give a judgment to them eventually.

The purpose of this essay is to show that the link between Corporate Social Responsibility & the competitive advantage of a company is often viewed to be positive if environmental limits, social needs & corporate interests are all coordinated within the given framework (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be classified as the actions of firms that contribute to social welfare, beyond what is required for profit maximization (McWilliams, 2015). Economist Milton Friedman famously stated that, “a corporation’s responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible”. Despite the fact that the main objective of a business is to earn profit, corporations ought to look into the welfare of the society & should perform its activities within the framework of environmental standards (Mugurusi, 2008).

The author tries to find out whether making CSR a mandatory requirement for the companies as a social responsibility will help in the upliftment of the society. CSR models previously were voluntary actions taken up by the corporations but the new CSR norms mandate this responsibility. The country is now moving towards MANDATORY, NOT VOLUNTARY CSR regimes. This Article begins with the origin of CSR during the Earth Summit in early 90’s and then its scenario in the Indian corporate sector. Some of the examples of volunteer CSR activities showcased the sincere efforts taken by certain major tycoons of Indian corporate sector and now after India being the first country to mandate CSR in the Companies Act will be a boon for social upliftment or not. According to the author, working for the undeveloped communities for the country is a work that required moral values within an individual or a corporate, making it mandatory will only add more confusions and an opportunity to tainted companies to go smooth in the eyes of law by means of corruption or extortion in the system. Moreover, penalizing only if reason not displayed by the Board in their Annual Report will not be the solution to the problem. This article will seek an understanding whether mandating CSR will be a boon to social upliftment or not and concludes by suggesting certain rewards or tax benefits for