The Myth of Csr

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a broad term used to describe a company's efforts to improve society in some way. These efforts can range from donating money to non-profits to implementing environmentally-friendly policies in the workplace. CSR is important for companies, non-profits, and employees alike.

As such, it applied cultural relativism to justify the use of child labor, unsafe labor practices, and near slave labor in its factories. Since then, Nike has been a driving force to ensure fair labor practices across the apparel industry. In 1999, Nike was a key contributor to the establishment of the Fair Labor Association, an organization that is “…dedicated to protecting workers’ rights around the world” (Fair Labor Association, 2016). Today, Nike continues efforts to ensure that contract factories comply with its Code of Conduct to improve labor standards in overseas factories (Nike, 2016). Because of Nike’s efforts to expand and enforce social responsibility at its factories and given the lessons learned from its sordid past, it is unlikely that Nike would resort to any of the straw men fallacies. However, given the pressure by investors to expect solid returns, one hopes the company continues its altruistic social responsibility efforts while veering away from the Friedman Doctrine and its assertion that “… the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Hill, 2011).

Businesses, specifically larger corporations, play a major role in what occurs in society therefore, they are responsible to their stakeholders not only to pursue economic goals but the greater social good as well. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) means that a corporation should act in a way that enhances society and its inhabitants and be held accountable for any of its actions that affect people, their communities, and their environment. (Lawrence, 2010). Social responsibility is becoming the norm so much so that some businesses have incorporated it into their business model. There are three components of the bottom line of social

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.

To assist in the discussion, the essay starts by laying a background by briefly discussing the theoretical importance of CSR. Second, it provides a brief discussion of Nike as an association. Third, it digs into the understanding of CSR as an issue in Nike and its significance, what steps Nike has taken to improve on these issues, its effect on other parties, and the regulatory measures that bear on the issue. Lastly, the essay discusses the best course of action, and, how such call for action should be justified.

Based on my interpretation of CSR, I see it as a voluntary obligation that companies have promised to their stakeholders to fulfill by improving, or at least not harm, the environmental and social wellbeing. When companies engage in CSR, they voluntarily promise to, for example, carry the responsibility to protect the environment and take actions against bribe or other corruptive activities related to their business. It certainly has some positive influences to specific areas based on my knowledge gained from other classes; nevertheless, when judge CSR in the context of total impacts on our society and environment, it is obvious that CSR has failed its mission to lessen the negative impacts of business based on the evidences that provided by the author. Also, since there is a strong positive relationship between CSR behaviors and consumers’ reactions to a firm’s products and services, it seems to me, now, that CSR for the most companies is just a fancy cover that helps them to create or promote a good image and reputation. The recent case that shows the failure of CSR of Volkswagen even make me believe that CSR programs may be just a marketing or public relation exercise for many

Similarly, Nike’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices were in question. Truly, their CSR was insufficient and lacked in moral obligation to the communities in which they operated. Conversely, supervisors in the overseas factories were just trying to ensure they met production goals and kept costs low so Nike would continue to do business with them (Nisen, 2013). As a result, Nike expanded their compliance staff, invested in the training of staff and overseas suppliers, developed additional auditing protocols, hired third-party auditors to check their internal audits, and spent millions of dollars to improving working conditions in overseas factories who made Nike products (Locke, 2013). According to a case study, “Nike auditors and compliance staff to be serious, hardworking, and moved by genuine concern for workers and their rights” (Locke, 2013, p.

“It has an 86 percent market share and die-hard fans who will accept no other alternative.” (Nisen, Nike tests customer loyalty with $225 shoes, 2013). Although the company may lose a small segment who look for less prices to its rival brands. At the same time, with its CSR initiatives Nike can maintain a sustainable market positioning in the longer run. The company can develop new business strategy where it can integrate its CSR programs and use it as a source of social progress. It can educate its customers about its role in creating ethical and safer working environments in the factories and justify the increase in the prices of its

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.

Twenty years ago and earlier, with rare exceptions, the only corporate charity was a bit of gifting by the CEO, perhaps to the arts. Ten years ago, corporate philanthropy and volunteerism became popular as an a la carte add on. In these posts from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), I am turning the spotlight on the avant garde of CSR: companies that make community and global problem-solving part of their business platform, thus making "doing good" sustainable.

Current approaches to CSR are fragmented and/or disconnected from business goals. Many firms still consider CSR as another generic public relations problem in which media campaigns and CSR reports are used to paint the company as a positive ethical, social and or environmental advocator and supporter. For example, the annual reports discuss a firm’s sensitivities to CSR issues, but completely lack the entire story and offer no further forward commitments from the firm. Further, the ratings and rankings measurements are self-appointed by the firm, not always accurate to validate the work and direct impact to what they are measuring, and the criteria base varies widely and weighed differently in the final scoring. Worst of all the data lacks impartial auditors for validating the data to ensure the ratings have been accurately met, and data is statistically significant and a good proxy for what it is supposed to reflect. This has resulted in reactive initiatives designed to appease vocal

In the year 2005, Nike started disclosing its CSR activities after years of silence due to legal concerns. After several audits, Nike reported cases of abusive treatments, unsanitary health conditions, and terrible working environment in more than quarter of its South Asian plants. For example, 25 percent to 50 percent of the factory workers faced restrictions on access to toilets and drinking water during work hours. They were denied at least one day off in a week, and more than half of workers in factories worked more than 60 hours in a week. Furthermore, 25 percent of factories punished workers who refused to work overtime. In order to correct these problems, Nike adopted new strategies and came up with new approaches to improve social performance in supply chains. They worked with several branches of their industry, labor ministers, civil society, and competitors around the world in order to bring positive changes in working conditions and attain better standards of social and environment performance. Nike plans to change the management style around the world by focusing on being “leaders beyond borders.” Nike knew that they need to reach to

As businesses have evolved over time, there is no denying that consumers have grown to expect certain behaviors from the variety of companies that they have the option to endorse. A business can spend millions of dollars on advertising, researching, sampling and surveying customers all of which can be undone by a mistake that ruins their reputation. Corporate social responsibility is a term that has its origins in the 1950s. It refers to “situations where the firm goes beyond compliance and engages in actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams, Siegel & Wright, 2006, p. 1). It was in the 1990s that corporate social responsibility truly became a trend that led to the development of other terms such as ‘business ethics’ (Carroll 2008). In the twenty first century, especially in the North American and European communities, the concept of corporate social responsibility became so widespread, that nowadays, consumers expect business to care and show that they participate in CSR initiatives (Van Der Smissen 2012). Advertising CSR initiatives became an important tool in gaining consumer trust in the company.

Nowadays, corporations which are considered to be profit-driven organizations try hard to come up with novel marketing strategies and utilize them to maximum their own profits. Moreover, more and more consumers’ attitude toward corporations’ impression are on the basis of their performance on social environment. This trend makes corporations tend to concentrate on how to give consumers a so called “good” impression (CSR or CRM?).

This widespread transmission of a corporation’s misconduct will then have significant ramifications for their reputation and profitability. The case of Shell in Ogoni (Niger Delta, Nigeria), the Brent Spar in the UK as well as Nike’s sweatshop saga in Asia in the 1990s are good examples of how the social conducts of a corporation can affect their reputation. However, the tension between CSR concepts and CSR practices remain and this has led some to