The Equator Principle, A Risk Management Framework Designed And Adopted For Financial Institutions

In (Cohen, 2008), the author quotes (Drucker, 1946) in noting that “Every organization must assume full responsibility for its impact on its employees, the environment, customers, and whomever and whatever it touches”. According to (Cohen, 2008; Drucker, 1946), that is the very definition of social responsibility. There are many ambiguities surrounding the concept of social responsibility; everything from definition to terminology, even what actions constitute responsible behavior is unsettled (Vogel, 2005). For purposes of this paper we will use the term corporate social responsibility (CSR).

What is the corporation’s social responsibility? Many might say the main idea is that a corporation must go further than carrying out their basic function of purely making profits. A corporation must create wealth in ways that avoid under minding society, and instead enrich the society it operates in. The term “corporate social responsibility” has been defined in numerous ways; from the constricted economic perception of increasing stockholder wealth (Friedman, 1962), to economic, legal, ethical and flexible strands of accountability (Carroll, 1979) to good corporate social responsibility to citizens (Hemphill, 2004). These disparities differ from fundamental assumptions of what corporate social responsibility involves. However, one has to keep in mind that the CEO of any corporation is legally the agent of the stockholder, and must focus on what the shareholder wants. More often than not, the shareholder would prefer profits for individual gain rather than spending their money on social projects. Stakeholder groups have increased their influence to enact their agendas. Using profits to fund schools and partake in fixing the environment are all great and wonderful things, but this social tax of using profits for social ends projects goes entirely against democracy. Or does it? Who should truly be held responsible for stakeholders around the corporation? Is it the responsibility of the government, philanthropists, employees, its

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

Why is social responsibility a major problem facing organizations and management? Global interdependence demands that organizations and management make social responsibility, ethical behavior, ecological protection, and economic development a priority. When a business is socially responsible it establishes that it cares about people, global sustainability, and the community as a whole. A lot of businesses have been

More and more concern is displayed with managerial ethics and social responsibility. Some may regard them as cost which will eliminate

Corporate social responsibility is not going to solve the world’s problems. With that being said, corporate social responsibility is a way for companies to benefit themselves while also benefiting society. It allows companies to take small steps to make big differences in areas of need. Some may say that it is a bunch of “greenwashing” – the deceptive use of green marketing that promotes a misleading perception that a company’s policies, practices, products or services are environmentally friendly – but there is a call to action that inspires a company to get involved in the community (Kewalramani, Sobelsohn).

Nowadays, organizations have a corporate social responsibility to fulfill in the business industry. There is a variety of definitions for corporate social responsibility however; a common definition is a business integrates social and environmental concerns in their everyday business operations on a voluntary basis (Murphy, 2010). It is important that managers behave ethically and morally so other individuals will follow their guidance. A manager is responsible for fair treatment of employees, customers, and suppliers, building trustworthy relationships, and being transparent (Murphy, 2010). As a result, managers that are in executive level positions are oftentimes, most responsible for any unethical or

Sometimes, in an effort to protect their jobs, further their careers or meet unrealistic objectives some managers may also experience ethical issues such as corruption (accepting bribes, abusing their power for financial gain), advertising (desire to oversell a product), sourcing raw materials (do they conduct business with a supplier who isn’t treating their staff fairly or whose methods are damaging to the environment), privacy (should the company record telephone conversations, access private emails and web sites that staff visit), safety (is the work environment safe or hazardous to the staff and community), salary (is the staff being paid fairly, in line with their job descriptions), communication (is information on a need to know basis, when a public announcement is made does the staff know first or last), and pricing (is product pricing set

Corporate social responsibility incorporates environmental, social, and economic dimensions that provide leadership and differentiation opportunities for perceptive organizations. However,

In other words, these socially responsible companies will evaluate not only the short and long term economic outcomes of their present decisions but also the long-term environmental and societal outcomes of their current actions. This thus leads to the triple bottom line approach of reporting environmental, social, and economic performance. In addition, Wilson from the Ivey Business Journal argues about corporate social responsibility or the CSR. The CSR has been around longer than the term and implication of “sustainable development” but has similar guidelines. From about 1953 the on, the main debate was whether corporate managers had an ethical responsibility to consider the needs of society and by 1980, it was generally and consensually accepted that corporate managers should and did have this moral responsibility. So by incorporating sustainability plans or even creating a separate branch dedicated to doing so, the company’s reputation often is increased, which over the long term, will contribute to accentuate customer loyalty, market share, and brand value and awareness. (Wilson, 2003) This case study done on Johnson & Johnson published by the IMA Educational Case Journal analyzes the impact that implementations of these sustainability

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

While there is no universally accepted definition of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is usually described in terms of a company considering, managing and balancing the economic, social and environmental impacts of its activities. The notion of corporate social responsibility should be a part of the core business operations of a company, rather than a separate ‘add on’.[2]

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

‘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,