Fallacies of Corporate Social Responsibility

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).

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.

On the other side, as the legal personality of the corporations evolved in the 1800s, enterprises were no longer responsible for serving the public interest. Consequently, any social welfare was symbolic and procured from the economic function of organizations (Banerjee, 2008). Furthermore, it seems that corporations are using CSR strategies as a window to present favorable images and obtain economic benefits. Historically the relationship between revenues and investment in CSR programs is a controversial issue. Furthermore, the power of the economic CSR rhetoric lies in the ability to validate particular ideologies to consolidate the power of larger corporations (Banerjee,

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.

Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015, January 1). The Truth About CSR. Harvard Business Review, 40-49.

It is not a common sentiment to hear Milton Friedman described as left of center in political spheres. Certainly, Friedman’s landmark essay The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits in the New York Times magazine was filled with many assertions that placed him as a bulwark for a growing conservative movement who felt a vindication for the free market mechanism and skepticism for the role of government. However, while reading Friedman muse over the social responsibilities of businesses, one cannot help but notice the emergence of a deeper philosophical thought that aligns much more closely with the liberal views of yesteryear and today.

This argument contents that if organisations are allowed to have this CSR level of power and influence, they will use it to make society more commercial and materialistic, supporting their profit motive as opposed to civilising the business.

It can argue that both Friedman’s thesis and the current practice of CSR lead to a lack of professionalism. Imagine we ask the question: what makes a good shoemaker? For Friedman, it is making plenty of money. For the CSR zealot, it is spending Saturday afternoon volunteering in the local animal shelter. Yet common sense tells us that neither is true, that the good shoemaker is the one who makes good shoes at affordable prices, because shoes are something that everyone in the community needs.

Friedman saw CSR as an additional business cost factor that made the financial equilibrium more difficult to maintain. In this sense, M. Friedman (1962 and 1970) saw CSR as a “subversive doctrine” and he said that the sole responsibility of the business is to increment profits.

Milton Friedman was an American economist, statistician and writer, who had a massive impact on the research agenda of the economics profession. His famous words “the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, Milton. 1970) led to many controversial debates on whether businesses should have ethics or if profit should be their main goal. Corporate social responsibility has many definitions, as its interpretation is quite loose, so I have chosen one that relates the most to this essay, given by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, in 2000: “Corporate social

According to Milton Friedman “the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” As with the case study, Mr. Paulson solely aims for maximizing profit. “Acting "responsibly" risks reducing profits or forgoing revenue in the name of social good.” “Profits are the most important, but not the only behavioral constraint of the firm.”

4. “CSR is only relevant for large private sector companies.” Critically discuss providing examples from SMEs, the public and civil sectors.

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