Why Do Chief Executive Officers?

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.

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

In recent years, companies are becoming socially responsible and now stakeholders almost expect a company to have CSR policies. Therefore, in twentieth century, corporate social responsibility (CSR) became an important development in public life (Barnett, ND).Corporate social responsibility is defined as “the ways in which an organisation exceeds the minimum obligations to stakeholders specified through regulation and corporate governance” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). Stakeholders can be defined as “those individuals or groups who depend on the organisation to fulfil their own goals and on whom, in turn, the organisation depends” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). There are many

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.

Additionally, “in keeping with an ethos of ethical responsibility, this process of CSR should involve employees and others” (Strand, 2011, pg.88). Whenever leaders and team members are participating in teamwork, they should not be prideful or manipulative nevertheless, to encourage an open communication with other colleagues to minimize the confusions. Moreover, this participative approach encourages teams’ collaboration, participation, and where the leaders are modest and nurturing. In this participative approach, leaders and teams should become more accountable and advantageous to stronger CSR embracement than a tyrannical leadership approach.

CSR is all about businesses understanding the effects that they have on the community/wider world. Businesses will use this impact in a positive way to

The stakeholders are the shareholders, managers, and employees. The current situation has caused a dilemma that affects all stakeholders equally. When the business is at risk, everyone involved should be concerned about the future of the organization. However, the responsibility falls to the senior leaders of the organization to solve the current issues. However, holding 80% of the company’s stocks is concerned not only about the organizations current issues but also with the value of his investment, as he gets closer to retirement. This creates an ethical dilemma due to his personal finances and retirement being directly affected by the company’s performance. In addition, the CEO believes that the status of the organization is not as bad as some of the senior leadership team would say. The shareholders interest is purely profit. The impact of how Huffman Trucking runs the business and implements change has a direct reflection on the company’s image.

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

Concluding on his tradition view on CSR, in today’s world an organization cannot only focus on maximization of profit and ignore the external environment. We cannot ignore the fact that some companies pollute our environment and that they cannot ignore the society they are operating and always make profit. They cannot just concentrate only on wealth maximization and degrade the social

The burden of being socially responsible ultimately falls on the one with the most to lose. Chief Executive Officers rarely go out of their way to take social and political stances unless it is something they are passionate about, and they prepare themselves to take a financial and public relations hit. The act of taking stances on political and social issues could be the difference between millions of people siding or distancing themselves from an entity. There have been many examples where the act of

1. It is hard for companies to communicate their efforts in CSR to shareholders and investors. Although companies have progressed from only 20% of public companies publishing CSR reports to 72% from 2011 to 2013, there are still no universal standards established for reporting CSR information. Therefore, even the best CSR efforts can lose their value simply because the efforts are not communicated to users of financial statements. This is also in part due to CSR efforts being ill-defined. While some CSR ideas are universal many of the aspects of CSR are industry specific and hard to translate into meaningful disclosures for interested parties.

Chief Executive Officers (which will be referred to as CEOs for the remainder of this paper) is arguably the most prestigious position an individual can hold in the business world. There is no disputing the high level of responsibility necessary to manage the operations and resources of any company, while also being the key figure between the company’s board of directors and the stakeholders which are effected as a result of the company’s actions. Despite the high level of responsibility, it is worth asking a question that has been up for debate not just in recent years, but for the past several decades, which is whether or not CEO compensation can be justified? Just to put into perspective how much one of Canada’s highest-paid CEOs makes,

The argument against CSR is supported by well-known quote found in Milton Friedman’s 1970 New York Times Magazine article reads as follows: “[The responsibility of a

CSR is a voluntary commitment by businesses to implement particular codes of conduct, based on a belief that corporations have duties beyond their shareholders extending to stakeholders. I explore the extent to which the implementation of corporate

It seems that the objective of the CSR has been misconstrued. Every company must have its CSR activities keeping in view the needs of the locality where it is situated and also the prevailing environment.