The Concept Of Corporate Social Responsibility

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,

The question of corporate social responsibility is a debateable subject amongst academics and the business community in general. However, it is the author’s view that corporation law has still not struck the right balance between company shareholders and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in 2015.

Drawing from these debates, Archie Carroll has developed “the Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility”, one of the most significant concepts of CSR. There are four kinds of social responsibilities that contribute total CSR, he suggested, Economic, Legal, Ethical, and Philanthropic (1991). Therefore being socially responsible does not mean forgetting the fundamental aspect of business, to make profit. The obligation of Law restricts business activities and they are the rules of the game which businesses have to obey. Being ethical is to perform actions that are fair, morally good, and of stakeholders’ interests, even outside the boundary of law. Considering corporate citizenship, philanthropic responsibilities are responses to the rising society’s expectations to business (Carroll, 1991). The notion of discretionary and voluntary distinguishes philanthropic responsibilities to ethical responsibilities. A good CSR firm should “strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen” (Carroll, 1991, p.43) and without simultaneous fulfillment of the four responsibilities, the business should not be characterized as operating within CSR.

The term ‘corporate social responsibility’ is still in popular use, even though competing, complementary and overlapping concepts such as corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management and sustainability are all vying to become the most accepted and widespread descriptor of the field. At the same time, the concept of corporate social performance (CSP) has become an established umbrella term which embraces both the descriptive and normative aspects of the field, as well as placing an emphasis on all that firms are achieving or accomplishing in the realm of social responsibility policies, practices and results. In the final analysis, however, all these concepts are related, in that they are integrated by key, underlying themes such as value, balance and accountability (Schwartz and Carroll 2008), and CSR remains a dominant, if not exclusive, term in the academic literature and in business practice. Just to illustrate how the concept is always evolving, CSR International, a non-profit organization, announced in 2009 the birth celebration of CSR International, an exciting new organization supporting the transition from what it called the ‘old CSR’ (Corporate Social Responsibility) or CSR 1.0 to the ‘new CSR’ (Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility) or CSR 2.0. Whether CSR 2.0 turns out to be substantially different

“Businesses are owned by their shareholders - money spent on CSR by managers is theft of the rightful property of the owners-This is the voice of the laisser-faire 1980s, still being given powerful voice by advocates such as Elaine Sternberg. Sternberg argues that there is a human rights case against CSR, which is that a stakeholder approach to management deprives shareholders of their property rights.” (mallenbaker.net). This is one of the opinions which is against the concept of CSR which blames this theory for violating human rights of shareholders. Moreover, Lantos (2001), in the article ‘The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility’, while in agreement with the

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined by Carroll as being split into four possibilities,”it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and Philanthropic” (Visser. W, 2005). Economic responsibilities is defined as being for profit purposes, managers focus is purely on the outcome of the business and the shareholders, there is

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.

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.

The extent to which a business should practice corporate social responsibility is a continuing debate in modern society. Only providing services or selling products no longer constitutes a successful company, as there are expectations for firms to behave in a manner that is consistent with public policy. This creates a philosophical dilemma for corporations who wish to maintain positive relations with society, but not impede on their internal operations. The question becomes if corporations today can engage in business strategies that are both ethical and profitable.

Friedman's singular focus on profits not only implies that all non-shareholders are merely instrumental, but fails to consider the balance of short and long-term strategy. While the simplistic profit motive is convincing in the abstract, this assumes that immediate gains embody contingencies for finite resources and organizational continuity. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) aims to transcend the linear transactional model to embrace a holistic

Recently, the expectations of society for companies have increased more than before (Craig, Bhattacharya, Vogel and Levine, 2010), so one significant issue that most firms have been actively involved in is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Some may debate that it decreases company’s profits by spending much money on CSR. However, according to Needle (2004), ‘good’ CSR is also good for business, a firm could benefit from doing CSR. Thus, this paper aims to explain its importance. It begins with the definition of CSR and its four responsibilities, then presents how it influences a business and benefits it can bring. Finally, I am going to describe strategic CSR and discuss why firms have social responsibility.

Do all fashion supply chains view corporate social responsibility the same across the globe? What do consumers and suppliers think about corporate social responsibility? What might suppliers gain by implementing socially responsible practices? These are merely a few questions in need of consideration in order for the concept of social responsibility to be addressed across the European fashion retailers.

Rogers Telecom’s definition of corporate social responsibility is similar to the ISO 26000 in addressing the seven principle subjects, organizational governance, human rights, labour practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and community involvement and development. Although, not all issues belonging to these principles were addressed. The strongest attributes of the Rogers CSR definition supported by their 2013 CSR report are organizational governance, fair operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and development, and the environment. The weaker attributes of the Rogers CSR definition supported by their 2013 CSR report are human rights and labour practices.

Social obligation is a thought that has been of worry to humankind for a long time. In the course of the most recent two decades, be that as it may, it has happened to expanding worry to the business world. This has brought about developing communication between governments, organizations and society all in all. Previously, organizations basically fretted about the financial consequences of their choices. "Today, notwithstanding, organizations should likewise think about the legitimate, moral, good and social results of their choices" (Anderson 15). This paper will talk about the idea of corporate social obligation. It will examine the significance of partnerships setting up corporate social obligation ventures, and the effect these have on society.

Corporate Social Responsibility is described in regards to the Japanese's Internet market, Yahoo Japan Corporation (the Company) along with its consolidated subsidiaries and affiliates (the Yahoo Japan Group) to involve a full commitment on their part to the realization of an Internet environment that is characterized by safety, security and harmonious "with the expectations and needs of society." P38)