Ethical Perspectives On Social Responsibility

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

The purpose of this essay is to research the notion of CSR and uncover its true framework and outline what social responsibility truly means to corporate organisations, and whether it should be seriously considered to be a legitimate addition to the corporate framework of an organisation.

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 business study will analyze the ethical and legal importance of social responsibility in corporate culture. Friedman (1970) defines the dangers of ‘social responsibility” as a threat to the individualism and profit motives of corporate executives that must serve the corporation before the larger society. More so, Friedman argues that the corporation is an “artificial person” that relies on the free markets to correct problems with non-productive, hazardous, or useless products may interfere with the stability of society. Glasbeek’s (2002) critique of Friedman’s “artificial person” defines the problematic propaganda of the corporation

Corporate social responsibility spans across the globe, but different countries see and participate in CSR in different ways. Amerinda Forte, author of “Corporate Social Responsibility in the United States and Europe: How Important Is It? The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility,” an article published in 2013 in the International Business and Economics Research Journal, explains CSR using three traditional models: the shareholder value model where profits are the sole responsibilities of the business, the stakeholder model where the social responsibilities of the business reflect those of the stakeholders, and the business ethics model where businesses have social obligations and a moral duty to society as a business. The author

The pattern of social responsibility will be demonstrated in this paper by noting a couple inquiries encompassing the thought and routine of social responsibility. The paper will start with characterizing the idea of social responsibility and noting the accompanying inquiries: What does Cohen feel is the social responsibility of a business to its workers, stakeholders, and society as a whole? How does this perspective align with that of Drucker? How does Cohen’s opinion compare with that of Friedman? Which aligns best with the current business climate promoting a ‘green environment’? Why?

As is the case with most anything of any interest, the deeper you look into Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) the more difficult it is to define. And as long as it remains difficult to define, it will be difficult to communicate and enforce. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that one is faced with a series of questions related to corporate social responsibility, human rights and the law along a parallel path of considering the importance of profits, business innovation and market share.

According to Min-Young and Fairhurst (2009), corporate social responsibility is becoming a typical issue as several organizations attempt to incorporate social and environmental issues into the day- to- day operations of their businesses. However, an organization being socially responsible is not considered fad or a discretionary addition. Instead, one might argue that an organization’s interest in being socially responsible is what is described as a “reflective of a deeper change in the relationship” (Min-Young & Fairhurst, 2009, p. 140) between an organization and its stakeholders. Furthermore, Min-Young and Fairhurst (2009) stated that a critical perspective of corporate social responsibility appears to be the responsibility to work for the betterment of society. Thus, a socially responsible organization might be seen as an organization simply being a “good corporate citizen” (Min-Young & Fairhurst, 2009, p. 141). Theorists such as Wood believed that the fundamental idea of corporate social responsibility is that an organization and society are interconnected rather than “distinct entities” (Min-Young & Fairhurst, 2009, p. 142). As a result, society might have an expectation for desirable actions and outcomes from today’s organizations.

The so-called “license to operate”, both in social and governmental aspects, became the underlying motivation of CSR programmes. Insofar the social and economic contexts are understood as constraints, corporate social programmes were initially conceived in defensive terms to solve specific problems. For Kramer and Porter, CSR approaches, to a large extent, are superficial and uncoordinated measures focused in protect the reputation of the firm and its public relations (2006: 81). However, recent development within CSR framework have incorporated a broader scope towards sustainability and corporate citizenship ideas, under which companies are conceived as part of a wider network of actors, with convergent interests around social, economic and environmental goals (See Elkinton, 2006; Matten et al., 2003; Van Marrewijk, 2003).

Throughout my research of what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is, I noticed that many organizations have framed their own definition, considering a common ground between them. My own definition of CSR is the voluntary continuous commitment and responsibility on the effects that an organization has on both internal (employees) and external stakeholders (communities, environment) that go beyond legal or ethical standard required to operate, as well creating a synergistic relationship between the two parties promoting win-win relationship based on trust and the positive perception that reflects the organization to the community. (Mirvis, 2012, p. 110)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept which is also known as corporate citizenship, corporate conscience or in a simple way a responsible business. It is an integrated concept of self-regulatory business model for any organisation. Corporate Social Responsibility has been in practice for more than fifty years now, which has been adopted not only by domestic companies but also by transnational company with voluntary CSR initiatives (Chernev and Blair, 2015). It includes Corporate Social Responsibility for code of conduct, organisational health and environment, companies reporting on social, financial and environmental aspects, partnership with agencies, NGO’s and UN agencies etc. and increase its focus on community development program (Sun, Stewart and Pollard, 2010).

Corporate social responsibility can be simply defined as the “business’s consideration of society’s well-being and consumer satisfaction, in addition to profits.” (Kurtz, 2015). The term Corporate Social Responsibility refers to a company who take responsibility to provide needy benefit to the society that support the company’s existing with consumer’s buying power. Social responsibility is considered a moral principle of a business entity. It is a duty of every business and its leadership in-charge to maintain the balance between business ethics and profit, and social responsibility. It is the social duty, the mission and commitment of the company to help improve the society by providing the best possible working and living conditions for its employees, their families, and effectively contributes to the community as a whole.

Long before H.R Bowen, in his book ‘Social Responsibilities of the Businessman’ propounded Corporate Social Responsibility as a desirable directive for prosperous companies; it has been long practised as a mode of charity and philanthropy as advocated by various religious and family values. The concept of CSR since then have been intricately connected with the values of good governance which aims to usher a socially inclusive positive society which focuses on addressing cultural impediments, social issues and environmental sustainability. As proposed by the United Nations Environment Programme, companies should be ethically responsible and should strive

The classic origin of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) came from the principle that the purpose of the corporation is to make profits for the stockholders. This view of Milton Friedman came to be referred to later as the classical theory of CSR (Bowie, 1991). Tom Donaldson argued that this theory derived from the concept of the social contract between the corporation and the society where it operates. This perspective, however, faced criticism over its inherently opportunistic and exploitative viewpoint. A corporate vision aimed only at upholding the shareholder’s right to profit for their investment logically will have to qualm of exploiting stakeholders to serve the end game of profit. It will have no qualms at paying

The (Commission, 2015) defines CSR as “companies taking responsibility for their impact on society”. It adds that CSR should be initiated by companies, with public authorities playing a supporting role through policy and regulation. Companies the commission would consider as socially responsible would have to comply with the law, integrate social, environmental, ethical, consumer and human rights concerns into their business and strategy operations. This recent definition of CSR covers most if not all of the angles of the different definitions and models of CSR put forth by writers in the CSR space. However as written by many authors, this is a dynamic field that continues to evolve (Carroll and Shabana, 2010, Geva, 2008, Carroll, 1999, Lee, 2008, Pirnea et al., 2011, Waddock, 2008). According to (Spector, 2008) its roots can be traced to the pre- World War II era (early years of the cold war), but for the sake of this paper we shall not go that far back. We