Corporate Social Responsibility Essay

The main ethical dilemma encountered occurs because two major companies, Woburn, W.R. Grace and J Riley Leather, were responsible for polluting Woburn’s drinking water through the negligent dumping of carcinogenic solvents. This negligence is further compounded by the fact that the companies blatantly knew that their actions were polluting the local drinking water with trichloroethylene, a labeled carcinogenic. Furthermore, the companies made no attempt to clean or contain the hazardous waste, and the companies systematically hide their conspiracy. Their actions can be justified through the utilitarian ethical theory. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that focuses the moral correctness of an action on the consequence rather than the action itself. Additionally, this view is based on the hedonistic view that humans naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. In regards to the companies in the film, they dumped toxic waste into the water supply to save time and expenses that would otherwise be utilized to hire a company to clean up the toxins. In their perspective, they avoided the pain of extra expenses and sought the pleasure involved in saving the money for personal

Social responsibility is generally regarded as a duty of an organization’s management towards the benefit and well-being of the society in which it is engaged. The organization must behave ethically considering the social, cultural, economic and environmental issues.

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a very controversial topic. A question that has been debated for the past few decades is; is it corporately viable to introduce social responsibility as a proposed addition to the work ethic of business organisations. As well as, if adopting the framework of corporate social responsibility would yield positive improvements for those organisations.

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.

Business organizations today are socially and ethically responsible for doing the right thing, exercising good judgment in their business activities with employees, stakeholders, customers and the community. Business organizations emphasis should not only be on profits, but also on how business decisions impact society.

Moving forward into the movie and the case, looking at the big picture, there are several leads and connections that point towards “Beatrice Foods” and “W.R. Grace” to blame. Throughout the entirety of the case, it seemed that it was becoming obvious that they were the companies that caused the toxin contamination in the town’s water supply.

Every business has a social responsibility toward society. That means to maximize positive affects and minimize negative affects on the society. Social responsibilities includes economic-to produce goods and services, that society needs at the price, that satisfy both-business and consumers, legal

Corporate social responsibility is an organizations’ impact on society that goes beyond what is ethical. Being socially responsibility, an individual in upper management must realize how the actions might be able to influence the rest of the environment. If a company is socially responsible the company is honest, trustworthy, and display integrity while dealing with others and provides the attention to the stakeholders, build a community by searching for goals that are compatible with and respect individuals and accomplish silent triumphs.

On the contrary, social responsibility applies only to an organization or business, whereas ethics applies to people’s behaviors and how the obligations determine whether an action is right or wrong. Social responsibility is the application of a set of ethics to a business or organization. Edwin Epstein’s definition of corporate social responsibility supports the idea that corporate responsibility is ethically based in its decisions with the agents associated with the company. Epstein stated, “Corporate social responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems which have beneficial rather than adverse effects upon pertinent corporate stakeholders” (Carroll, 1996). Social responsibility contains both the responsibility to discover employee misconduct while also maintaining good relationships with those outside of the business. According to Berenbeim, it is the corporation’s responsibility to maintain those good relationships with the agents of interest paramount to the obligations to minimize the risk of employee misconduct (Berenbeim,

Social responsibility is the obligation a business has to its stakeholders. Stakeholders include: customers, employees,

Social responsibility is built on a system of ethics, in which decisions and actions must be ethically validated before proceeding. If the action or decision causes harm to society or the environment then it would be considered to be socially irresponsible. Being socially responsible means that people and organization must behave ethically and sensitivity towards, social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues. Striving for social responsibility helps individuals, organization and government to have a positive impact on development, business and society. Often, the ethical implication of decision/action are overlooked for personal gain and the benefits are usually material. This frequently manifest itself in companies that

I always knew that corporations just wanted your money, but after watching the documentary I was pretty outraged at what many companies will do just to get it. The complete disregard for human health and well-being is flabbergasting to me. Kids in sweat shops, people dying from simple staph infections, and many more horrible things that companies do to make a buck are ridiculous. If companies are given most rights people do, then they should be given the same punishments that people would if they would do any of the things these corporations are doing. Some of these companies aren’t getting away with it, but many are still and more needs to be done in order to stop harming the

This is essay will focus on analyzing how corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences the investor relations of a corporation and whether it is good for the society, using Gasland and FrackNation as examples. In the contemporary society, CSR sounds like a commendatory term for the society. Over decades, it seems like that both the public and the media are trying to encourage corporations to behave more responsibly, and corporations are gradually becoming more socially aware in the contemporary society because they know they cannot afford the consequence of ignoring it. (Bernstein, 2009:606) However, CSR is not always beneficial. One of the major practices of public relations is investor relations, because the concerns of a corporation’s investors can directly relate to its welfare. When the corporations paid more attention on CSR, their investors will inevitably somehow feel ignored. As a public which has real material input to the corporations, investors are seeking for future returns, they want to be treated specially by the corporations that they invest. Also, value too much about CSR can make corporations become the victim of being morally hijacked, which may harm both a corporation’s financial success and the whole society’s harmony.

‘Corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) means that the firm has wider responsibilities in relation to objectives and people apart from the owners or shareholders (Beal and Goyen 2005). These responsibilities are achieved when the firm adapts all of its practices to ensure that it operates in ways that meet, or exceed, the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business. Objectives often associated with CSR include a responsibility to manage natural assets sustainably and not to pollute by chemical discharge, smell, noise, dust or other irritants; fair treatment of employees and ethical attitude towards clients. The other people include employees, customers, suppliers,