1. Relationship between corporate governance and social responsibility. Does a corporation have to act selflessly to be considered socially responsible? Of equal concern is the question of corporate social responsibility, what this means and how it can be operationalized. Therefore, several industries consider that their supremacy is suitable as they conform to the joint code on corporate governance, which came into effect 2003. Several companies respect corporate supremacy as a part of investor relationships and have no action concerning such governance except to identify that it’s important for investors and to flag up that they have such policies of the governance. The majority enlightened identify that there is a clear link between governance and corporate responsibility and put energies to link the two. Frequently this is no further than making a claim that good governance is among CSR policy and among their relationship with shareholders (Saunders et.al, 2016) Corporate Governance is focused with holding the balance between social goals and economic as well as between individual and communal goals. The framework of the corporate governance is responsible in encouraging the effective custom of resources and equally to require accountability for those resources. The main objective is to bring into line the interests of individuals, corporations and society CSR is concerned with handling the stakeholders of the firm ethically. Exist of shareholders within a firm and
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
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a very controversial topic. A question that has been debated for the past few decades is; is it corporately viable to introduce social responsibility as a proposed addition to the work ethic of business organisations. As well as, if adopting the framework of corporate social responsibility would yield positive improvements for those organisations.
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.?
Shared value is a business strategy which focuses on creating overall value while addressing social problems. This concept of management strategy was expressed in the “Creating Shared Value” article by Porter and Kramer. Shared value is not just an aspect of a company’s growth strategy or general business operations. It is well integrated in the way a company operates along with what their goals are as an organization. The value created for a company’s targeted end user also has some sort of social impact which benefits their company purpose. Creating social impact is a company goal and success is measured through creating a shared value network. Porter believes that “The ability to address social issues is integral to profit maximization instead of treated as outside the profit model.” He is addressing that profits are not measured by impact not just monetary gains for the company, we can change our mindset to think of profit in a different way. Profit can be a benefit or some sort of added value. In this approach Porter argues that “Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them.” This relationship is the driving force for a company’s development and future growth, and it goes beyond corporate strategy it also incorporates investments and key stakeholders for each company. Quantifying a monetary figure and amount for social impact may be extremely difficult, however it has progressed with awareness and
Company Q’s current attitude toward social responsibility demonstrates a bias toward the outdated shareholder model, rather than the stakeholder interaction model of corporate governance, as well as a significant lack of concern for the fundamental wellbeing of some of its primary stakeholders. Arguably, however, even the shareholders themselves may ultimately be frustrated in realizing the maximum potential return on their investment in this company due to lost opportunities as a result of Company Q’s poor corporate citizenship and failures to achieve social responsibility.
Sustainable development requires companies to meet their objectives while protecting the quality of life of their employees, surrounding community, and the environment. More than 40 years ago, Medtronic 's co-founder Earl Bakken provided the framework for the company 's sustainability strategy by formulating the company 's mission statement that has remained unchanged to the present day. "Medtronic has operated with a clear, compelling mission: To contribute to human welfare through the application of biomedical engineering in the research, design, manufacture, and sale of instruments or appliances that alleviate pain, restore health and extend life" ("Integrated,", 2016, p.4). This visionary mission statement also included a group of ethical guidelines such as the need to strive without reserve for the greatest possible reliability, to recognize the personal worth of employees, and to maintain good citizenship as a company. Those early tenets of corporate responsibility were the foundation of Medtronic 's current sustainability practices.
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
The concept of social responsibility likely has its roots in the Puritans and Quakers teachings of the 16th and 17th centuries. Puritans characterized humanity negatively, believing humankind to be hopelessly sinful. Quakers held a positive view, believing that of there is God (good) inside everyone. According to Heald [1970], corporate managements began to demonstrate social responsibility by considering community welfare as a whole in their goals to maximize profits and shareholders value. Shareholder response to social responsibility became more prominent during the 1980s. Broyles [1998] highlighted the role of shareholder activism, which was responsible for ending U.S. corporations’ involvement in South Africa during Apartheid. As a result, many management teams incorporated corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their management philosophy. At the time, CSR’s benefit to shareholders was debated widely. Those against CSR, used agency theory and the statement by Friedman [1970] which argues that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, known commonly as the shareholder model of business. For investors, CSR can be viewed either through a Puritan or a Quaker lens. They can invest in firms that promote social responsibility (a Quaker approach) or divest in firms that are socially irresponsible (a Puritanical approach). Initially, religious organizations began to shun investing in corporations whose businesses involved
This is essay will focus on analyzing how corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences the investor relations of a corporation and whether it is good for the society, using Gasland and FrackNation as examples. In the contemporary society, CSR sounds like a commendatory term for the society. Over decades, it seems like that both the public and the media are trying to encourage corporations to behave more responsibly, and corporations are gradually becoming more socially aware in the contemporary society because they know they cannot afford the consequence of ignoring it. (Bernstein, 2009:606) However, CSR is not always beneficial. One of the major practices of public relations is investor relations, because the concerns of a corporation’s investors can directly relate to its welfare. When the corporations paid more attention on CSR, their investors will inevitably somehow feel ignored. As a public which has real material input to the corporations, investors are seeking for future returns, they want to be treated specially by the corporations that they invest. Also, value too much about CSR can make corporations become the victim of being morally hijacked, which may harm both a corporation’s financial success and the whole society’s harmony.
Previous research on Corporate Social Responsibility focused mainly on stakeholder groups such as consumers and investors. However, very little research has been carried out to the effects of Corporate Social Responsibilities on
There are several factors that determine that at the moment CSR is primarily relevant to large private sectors, according with our textbook, First, SMEs are informal in nature and this reason lack the need for bureaucratic systems and its structures due to the advantages of small size businesses. Second, large corporations, are often under the loop of the society and their actions are visible and vulnerable to criticism. And third, usually the small business are manger by the owner and for this reason, there is not obligation or direct pressure to serve the shareholders to maximize or return their investment at any cost.
Corporate Governance refers to the way a corporation is governed. It is the technique by which companies are directed and managed. It means carrying the business as per the stakeholders’ desires. It is actually conducted by the board of Directors and the concerned committees for the company’s stakeholder’s benefit. It is all about balancing individual and societal goals, as well as, economic and social goals. Corporate Governance is the interaction between various participants (shareholders, board of directors, and company’s management) in shaping corporation’s performance and the way it is proceeding towards. The relationship between the owners and the managers in an organization must be healthy and there should be no conflict between the