Equity Theory And CSR On Consumer Satisfaction

The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to

In recent years, increasing number of customers and businessmen start to concern about the ethical issues in businesses. Although the main purpose of business is to make profits, the social influence of it also appears to be focused by a large proportion of customers and businessmen. Corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is closely connected with this concentration, was put forward in 1953 with the meaning of interacting social, environmental, and economic considerations into the decision-making structures and processes of business (Industry Canada, 2013). Although criticized, there is a business case for CSR because it could enhance customers’ loyalty, improve

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.

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

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.

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 (CSR) is a term used to describe a company’s efforts to improve society in a certain way. These efforts range from donating money to an organization such as a nonprofit organization, to implementing environmentally friendly policies in the workplace. This idea is not required for companies; instead it is something that companies do to improve their communities. The way companies practice CSR is different from company to company, and some companies may not even practice it at all.

Even though customers are a major key to success of any business, limiting CSR practices to an external group of stakeholder is insufficient. From the customers’ side, the focus is “on the corporate brand and its societal relationships with external constituencies.” (Lacey, Hensel 316). It is undeniable that implementation of CSR can attract the customers and lead them to be a significant are source of a financial gain. That is because CSR changes the way consumers behave in the market and alter their beliefs toward the company standards.” (Lacey, Hensel 316). Nevertheless, extensive focus on the social gains may cause the business to suffer financially. If that happened, the case is considered to be a failure of executing CSR. Again, this is a result of shifting all the business gears to benefit a sole group the stakeholders.

Drawing from these debates, Archie Carroll has developed “the Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility”, one of the most significant concepts of CSR. There are four kinds of social responsibilities that contribute total CSR, he suggested, Economic, Legal, Ethical, and Philanthropic (1991). Therefore being socially responsible does not mean forgetting the fundamental aspect of business, to make profit. The obligation of Law restricts business activities and they are the rules of the game which businesses have to obey. Being ethical is to perform actions that are fair, morally good, and of stakeholders’ interests, even outside the boundary of law. Considering corporate citizenship, philanthropic responsibilities are responses to the rising society’s expectations to business (Carroll, 1991). The notion of discretionary and voluntary distinguishes philanthropic responsibilities to ethical responsibilities. A good CSR firm should “strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen” (Carroll, 1991, p.43) and without simultaneous fulfillment of the four responsibilities, the business should not be characterized as operating within CSR.

It is a viable alternative to apply CSR in Corporate and management strategies to outclass competing companies. An organization by carrying out its ethical principles and convictions in their activities and propagating them via organizational network influences the relationship with shareholders, clients and employees. The application of CSR can lead to social benefits and legitimacy for the firm since it can consider itself as a coalition in which the different stakeholders participate to gain their own benefit. (Freeman, 1984).

society. If, instead, corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed—it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage. In this article, we propose a new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate success and social welfare as a zero-sum game. We introduce a framework companies can use to identify all of the effects, both positive and negative, they have on society; determine which ones to address;

These three strategic components can lead to successful CSR practices that improve the company’s image and profits, satisfy its stakeholders, and make a positive difference with regards to its social or environmental concerns. While the definition of CSR varies within the literature, I suggest that a customized CSR process that incorporates CSR fit, stakeholder engagement and strategic communications will lead to successful CSR practices.

Evaluating the measure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is as much an attempt to ascertain ethical conduct of interactions with stakeholders, as it is a management tool of to limit liability. A research summary of Corporate Responsibility Best Practices, notes that 72% of NYSE Euronext traded firms surveyed have a formal corporate responsibility programs in place (Corporate Responsibility Officer Association, 2011, p. 6). Just 20% of the surveyed firms did not view corporate responsibility as a priority, while many firms believed that ethical corporate responsibility was ingrained throughout their culture and functions.

Therefore, corporate’ activities have strong influences to the stakeholders. Hildebrand,D,et,al (2011) argued that under a specific but identifiable situation, a company’s CSR actions are able to satisfy stakeholders’ higher-order and self-related demand, meanwhile enabling the stakeholders to identify with the company. On the other hand, Piercy, N. and Lane, N.(2009) indicated that CSR seems to be the most efficient way for the corporate marketing efforts of most firms. It may enable the stakeholders to be loyal even life-long customers of the companies.

CSR can improve the company’s reputation and branding and this in turn improves the prospects for the company to be more effective to attract new customers and increase market share.