Social Responsibility And Triple Bottom Line

Abstractly, Global corporations have a key role to play in issues ranging from human rights to environmental policies. Specifically, corporations can be most effective in helping the poor by investing in local and global communities on a long-term basis rather than by acting as charities or aid agencies. However, to do so, corporations must restore the public 's trust. They must demonstrate that their presence, particularly in poorer countries and the emerging market economies, is a source of human progress. They must demonstrate that globalisation is not a zero-sum game in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In this regard, those who argue against globalisation are denying 1.5 billion people, who live in absolute poverty, the means of escape. To do nothing is morally unacceptable. The world is watching the corporate sector. This is a moment of great challenge, but also of great opportunity because if corporations can demonstrate that they are agents of progress, they can remove the doubts and renew the trust that is essential for both prosperity and security.

Because corporations are established to profit and shareholders invest money with expectations of a greater return, managers cannot be given a directive to be “socially responsible” without providing specific criteria of checks and balances to which needs to adhere. Therefore, it is imperative to the success of a corporation for managers to not act solely but rather to act within the policies of the shareholders.

There are conflicting expectations of the nature of a company’s responsibilities to society. However, those companies that undertake what may be termed ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ must decide; what are the actual social responsibilities of these companies? I will present a possible paradigm. Also, I will look at the benefit to the business that employs proper management as compared the business with poor management. This research paper describes my view of corporate social responsibility and compares the social responsibilities of Delta Air Lines and Spirit

The framework of corporate social responsibility is such that it is relatively complex and multidimensional. A three-dimensional

Many believe that business entities should have an ethical duty to be socially responsible, to work towards increasing its positive effects on society while decreasing its negative effects. Many organizations look for opportunities to be socially responsible while also creating shareholder wealth.

The expectation that businesses behave responsibly and positively contribute to society all while pursuing their economic goals is one that holds firm through all generations. Stakeholders, both market and nonmarket, expect businesses to be socially responsible. Many companies have responded to this by including this growing expectation as part of their overall business operations. There are companies in existence today whose sole purpose is to socially benefit society alongside businesses who simply combine social benefits with their economic goals as their company mission. These changes in societal expectations and thus company purpose we’ve seen in the business community over time often blurs the line of what it means to be socially

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

Carroll (1991) organized different corporate social responsibilities as a four-layered pyramid model and called it the pyramid of responsibilities. The four different responsibilities - economical, legal, ethical and philanthropic are the layers of the pyramid. Corporate social responsibility involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and socially supportive. To be socially responsible then means that profitability and obedience to the law are foremost conditions when discussing the firm’s ethics and the extent to which it supports the society in which it exists with contributions of money, time and talent”. And the different layers in the pyramid help managers

A triple bottom line model never merely quantifies an accomplishment or rather the wellbeing of a company through its conventional monetary bottom line. However, triple bottom line similarly measures social, ethical as well as environment performance of the company. Triple bottom line typically is an incessant process that shall assist the company in concentrating into the performance of a more sustainable business whereas demonstrating to local communities together with employees of that particular firm that is not merely looking forward on profit making, but similarly a greater common good for the company operations (Hitchcock and Willard, 2009).

Based off of Archie B. Carroll’s global corporate social responsibility pyramid, doing what is profitable or what is required by global capitalism is the base of the pyramid, whereas being a good global corporate citizen and doing what is desired by global stakeholders is at the top of the pyramid. Though it is important for companies to make the most amount of profit possible, it is also equally crucial for companies to contribute to their society by being a good

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

Some business leaders are taking good moral decisions and the reason behind that idea is that the core part of their business strategy is to create mutual benefit for both wider society and business as well. The growing desire of top management is to find out ways to create mutual benefit for both the organizations and the stake holders but the public still believes that companies are greedy entities which make decisions only in their self-interest, even at the cost of greater public welfare. It is the utmost obligation of the companies to discern the social issues while making the decisions (Yashiro, Yoshida and Suzuki, no date; Godwin, 2006; Schwab, 1996; Godwin, 2008; Werhane, 1998; Werhane, 2002; Heath, 2008; Mehalik and Gorman, 2006).

Corporate governance and social responsibility are two issues, which are dominating the agendas of 21st century multinationals. Both of these propositions provide multinationals with the opportunity to integrate their values into the way they do business and differentiate themselves from their competitors. This paper aims to describe and analyse the corporate governance and social responsibility initiatives of Samsung with a particular focus on Samsung Electronics. Firstly, an introduction to Samsung and its activities is provided. Then an analysis on how the company deals with business ethics is provided. Next, an overview of its corporate governance and social responsibility

However, some companies have been starting to recognize that being more ecological and having in consideration moral principals, can represent an advantage. Multinationals, which are companies that deliver services or produce goods in more than one country, can provide benefits for the host country, but it can also create ethical dilemmas. The fact that it operates in different societies, it make international managers have to deal with employees that may not share the same beliefs and be in a society that can have differentiated rules, regulations and values. In that case, ethics pay an important role because there’s the necessity to respect and follow the companies’ practices used in the home country but most importantly, to respect the employees that have the right to be treated according the universal moral principals. On the other hand, as countries has its differences, it is possible to observe that most of the developing countries have weaker rules in terms of the environment, pollution, the social rights and other various points and as a consequence some firms see this as an advantage and opportunity for the company to in some way increase production’s output by adopting unethical practices or work methods.

Companies with extensive responsibilities even argue about the system in pursuing social responsibility of business. According to Ulrich Steger, the company should prioritize the shareholders’ incessant interest but they should also be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environmental goals that the public expects them to be. Without a doubt, companies’ primary goal is to earn a profit. Emphasizing on profitability affects the fundamental values in the company, its morality. Companies ignore the ethics just to earn a mountainous income. This often causes extensive repercussions in the companies.