Economic Rhetorical Analysis

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 integration of social responsibilities in business that emerged with the financial capitalists spurred a fierce debate on whether or mot CSR should be included in the corporate objective function. the earliest reference to such criticism appears to be Ghent, who in 1902 criticized this new trend for its similarity to the economic feudalism of the middle Ages, and who argued that CSR was being used as a tool for forestalling public criticism and regulation rather than from an actual concern for social issues (as reported by Heald, 1957). Similar but more specific arguments have since been provided by Levitt (1958), Friedman (1962: 1970) and recently Jensen (2002). Ghent did

For many years, researchers held that the core responsibility of a corporation was to provide shareholders with financial returns. Carroll (1979) proposed that organizations have other types of responsibilities towards the society. In Carroll’s view, at some stage society has economic, legal, ethical, and other expectations. The essential part of Carroll’s definition of CSR is that a company has four primary responsibilities: to be profitable, observe the law, be ethical, and conduct discretionary activities. Drawing on those four responsibilities Carroll (1991) created a four-level pyramid of CSR and stated that the CSR policy of a company must include all of them. Carroll placed the economic responsibilities at the base of the pyramid, since for a company to operate successfully, it must have a financial return. On the second level were the legal responsibilities which in order to be fulfilled corporations must pursue their economic objectives (Carroll, 1991). Placing the economic and legal responsibilities at the bottom of the pyramid was reasonable because those two are fundamental for a company to be successful. The ethical responsibilities were placed on the third level of the pyramid suggesting that organizations ought to conduct their businesses operations in a fair and appropriate way and ought to protect the stakeholders’ moral rights (Carroll, 1991).

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.

CSR is a highly controversial topic due to disagreements surrounding the field. Werther and Chandler (2014) defines CSR as ‘… the relationship between corporations and the societies with which they interact… includes the responsibilities that are inherent on both sides of these relationships”. The framework behind CSR tends to be broad with the ideas surrounding its importance changing from business to business. On a basic level, a corporation’s goal is to maximise profits. The role of technology and globalisation in today’s society means that, a company’s relationship with society is essential in projecting a positive image (Werther and Chandler, 2014).

As the dramatically growing of economies and development of technology in the last century. The term of Corporate Social Responsibility appears more often into public’s concerned and it has become a hot issue in recent years. This essay is going to discuss and provide an overview of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by debate some key issue in this area.

“Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” (Holme and Watts (2000) p.8). For many years business have cared solely on money however in recent years businesses have started to take interest in CSR and helping society welfare. This paper will discuss if Corporate Social Responsibility is likely to become a game changer in the near future.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) has existed for a long time, it has garnered attention only in the last two decades as an important aspect of doing business. Academic research on CSR has evolved over the years, indicating a change in how CSR is viewed as time goes by. In the earlier years of

Debates over the concept of csr span from the 1930s to the 21st century. A debate over the responsibilities of corporate managers and directors to their shareholders and other groups directly influenced by corporations took place in North America during the 1930s, marking one of the first significant