The And Social Issues ( Brammer & Quot )

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.

When an organization partakes in “proactive behavior…for the benefit of society,” it is deemed as socially responsible (P. 155). However, prior to labeling a organization as socially responsible, it is important that we first identify what specific elements of proactive behavior constitute a socially responsible business. To begin, for an organization to be considered socially responsible on the highest level, it must take a proactive approach to doing business. This is defined as “[taking a] approach to social responsibility in which an organization goes beyond industry norms to solve and prevent problems” (P.155). In addition, it is standard for a socially responsible organization to incorporate a larger scope of stakeholders, to include external stakeholders, in their business decisions to create positive externalities, and mitigate negative ones, to benefit society as a whole.

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,

Moreover, Canada should know their environmental responsibilities as companies need space for land and lots of water for dumping waste. This increases risks for injuries to occur as employees enter harsh environments. Workers end up exposed to coal dust and silica for long periods which causes serious health problems. In areas of mining companies exists pollution at an increased rate that makes the soil and water enriched with heavy metals and livestock. Globally, businesses corporate social responsibilities that are essential as they consist of four strategies: the shareholder strategy, the alustric strategy, the reciprocal strategy, and the citizen strategy. The shareholder strategy is where the corporate social responsibility is looking for an overall profit and the same to reach threshold. Secondly, the alustric strategy is where the company declares themselves unaccountable for society and allows for responsibility to fall towards the person leading the firm - the manager. Next, the reciprocal strategy has an individual who looks for the flaws in both economic and social perspectives. Lastly, the citizen strategy is where there is a business analysis that includes individuals who have different expectations and interests for continuing the company’s goals. NGOs also pressure companies to fix remedies to help the victims of the violations.

To study some social problems, one may have to take a social constructionist approach. That is to say that taking this approach could be problematic because it is a function of social interaction. They aren 't immediately obvious but should be interpreted. Take into consideration texting and driving. Many believe it is horrible and those people who commit the crime should be punished. It did not always used to be this way and in some places is not looked at in such fashion. When we objectively label the creation of social problems, we focus on the measure of the characteristics of the conditions. They do induce material and psychic suffering.

Although not all companies are successful at truly embodying what it means to be green, even companies that have been synonymous for contributing pollutants and greenhouse gasses spend millions trying to convince stakeholders that they do. It’s often these last two dimensions of CSR—social and environmental, that either embroil a corporation in controversy or allow it to serve as an exemplar in good ethical business practices.

e. Firms in highly competitive industries find it easier to exercise “social responsibility” than do firms in oligopolistic industries.

Both the definitions given highlight the “voluntary” part of the actions taken by firms, those which go beyond law requirements, and from this starting point Matten and Moon (Matten & Moon 2008a) define two types of CSR, “implicit” and “explicit”. Implicit CSR reflects the actions taken by the firms to respond to formal and informal institutions for society’s interest, and consists of values, norms, and rules which result in requirements for corporations. Explicit CSR describes corporate activities that assume responsibility for the interests of society. They normally consist of voluntary programs and strategies by corporations which combine social and business value and address issues perceived as being part of the social responsibility of the company, often in response to local communities or Non-Governmental Organizations’ pressures (NGO) (Matten & Moon 2008b).

Public consciousness has become much more sensitive and demanding that organizations be more socially responsible. Much of the third-world countries have joined the global marketplace, creating a wider arena for sales and services. Organizations became responsible not only to stockholders (those who owned stock) but to a wider community of "stakeholders."

Corporations have a crucial role and responsibility in today’s society. As the power of the nation state is increasingly in decline, the influence of businesses is only expanding and intensifying. Companies and their decisions have a profound impact on communities, individuals and the environment. Therefore, these organisations must assume a significant responsibility in today’s globalised society. As Bryan Horrigan (2010) explains, businesses “not only must be engaged with their stakeholders but are themselves stakeholders alongside governments and civil society. International business leaders must fully commit to sustainable development and address paramount global challenges” (p.53).

Royle clearly states throughout this paper how he does not believe that corporate social responsibility will be correctly enforced and effective at McDonalds. Royle supports this claim by stating that the ‘concept of stakeholder democracy is unrealistic’ and that ‘without the good faith in employers … solutions like CSR are unlikely to be of any real value’ . This suggest that Royle believes that without a change in the view of the employers, corporate social responsibility will not be achievable nor effective. However, this is only Royle’s opinion on one fast-food Corporation and so this point can be argue to be biased to some extent and cannot be representative of the wider fast-food industry.

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-96. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684

Instead, it is important to examine the possible routes, mechanism, and solutions to guide businesses to integrate its economic growth, managerial responsibilities, social and environmental negative impacts in an integrated framework of responsive liability, avoiding decisions lightly. Moreover, it's necessary to go through the real company intentions and reasons to structured corporate social responsibility (CSR) as companies value because it is growing the number of businesses that use this initiative as a strategy to alleviate pressures or avoiding governmental regulations or stakeholders demands (Küpers,

This article had some informal fallacy in the sense that it appealed to the probability of the success for all companies that applied the stakeholder theory due to the success of the three examples given. The author does not look at the challenges that come with being on the international platform and trying to adjust to the different social or environmental laws that may apply to different locations.

In this paper Cheng et al. (2014) argued that the implementation of successful CSR policies leads to lower idiosyncratic risk due to improved stakeholder engagement, which reduce agency costs of an organisation, and increased transparency, which results a company becoming less capitally constrained and enhances a firm’s access to finance in capital markets. In order to achieve their aim the authors use cross sectional analysis of firms around the world and apply different variables and methods. They concluded that there is a link between good CSR activities and access to finance; however, social and environmental components of CSR are more significant for investors than the factor of governance since the former ones have higher impact on capital constraints.