Systems Theory and Triple Bottom Line Theory: Analysis

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.

or so many years our society has been thinking of forming new creative and innovative businesses, which would be more environmental and customer friendly. Nowadays a large number of different companies follow the social, ethical, as well as moral consequences when it comes to their decision making. One of the relatively new concepts involving economic and social concerns is Corporate Social Responsibility. Many of us apply this approach not only at work, but also in everyday life without even recognizing.

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

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).

Petrenko. A. Corporate social responsibility [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: https://moodle.yorku.ca/moodle/course/view.php?id=39261

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. In Journal of business ethics (p. 53).

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.

Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.) is a theory practiced in the business sphere since fifty years. It refers to the duty of business organizations to adopt certain activities that will benefit the society in some way. Charity, health-awareness campaigns are few examples that a business undertakes to fulfil its objectives of C.S.R. According to this ideal, it is important for various corporations today to undertake such social activities, apart from merely focusing on their objective of profit maximization. But, is it an obligation that is most important than other objectives of business? This thought further leads us to another significant question – In contemporary settings, should corporations be guided by the concept of C.S.R.?

The triple bottom line is used in business programs now days to make sure that businesses are more valuable, thus this is wrong to say that social responsibility or moral courage are more present in businesses now days. This is the right time when CSR is discussed in companies, no matter it is advertisement or production process CSR is considered important. This is another truth that stakeholders now want to invest in such companies only which are having high social responsibility. This is the reason that famous brands such as Coca Cola is involved in educating plenty of children who cannot afford education and Wal-Mart the best retail store of world is looking for such vendors who produce environment friendly product such as energy saving bulbs and so on. In traditional business the term bottom line is used to express profit or loss, there are social judges present along with environmentalist who are judging this bottom line and adding various aspects in it to improve business working, (Elkington, 1998) thus the triple bottom line is not about profit and loss in monetary terms only but it is much more than that, this is more about health awareness of workers and different healthy working aspects. If a firm is having good profit but workers here are dying because of unhealthy working conditions then this is not an effective CSR firm as per environmentalist

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).

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

Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility’, (3rd edition) Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford university press, pp.51-60

In 1994, the author coined the term triple bottom line. He reflects on what got him to that point, what has happened since – and where the agenda may now be headed. The late 1990s saw the term ‘triple bottom line’ take off. Based on the results of a survey of international experts in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development (SD), Figure 1.1 spotlights the growth trend over the two years from 1999 to 2001. As originator of the term, I have often been asked how it was conceived and born. As far as I can remember – and memory is a notoriously fallible thing – there was no single eureka! moment. Instead, in 1994