The Pros And Cons Of Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility is an important term that few know of. This term stands for everything that’s moral, from using less harmful chemicals in their products to protecting the rights of the workers and the society we live in. However, some companies do not live by this word. This, coupled with the massive amount of consumers buying their products, can cause a multitude of problems not only for the company workers, but to the world itself. As such, companies should become more aware of their effects on the world around them and change their moral responsibilities to treat their workers more humanely, protect the lives of the people in their towns, cities and countries and save the environment from further destruction and pollution.

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).

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

In the article, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits,” Friedman states that “businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they proclaim that business is not concerned merely with profit but also with promoting desirable social ends.” This social responsibility is defined as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is the belief that “corporations owe a greater duty to their communities and stakeholders” by having a “social conscience.” This, among other things, includes being environmentally responsible, contributing to non-profit organizations, and eliminating discrimination.

or so many years our society has been thinking of forming new creative and innovative businesses, which would be more environmental and customer friendly. Nowadays a large number of different companies follow the social, ethical, as well as moral consequences when it comes to their decision making. One of the relatively new concepts involving economic and social concerns is Corporate Social Responsibility. Many of us apply this approach not only at work, but also in everyday life without even recognizing.

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).

Therefore when Friedman mentions the role of a corporate executive, it doesn’t make sense for an individual working towards improving the business to care about social responsibilities if it isn’t a desire of his employer (Friedman, 1970). A corporate executive should only worry about social responsibility in his personal life not when the corporations stakeholders and employers money is at stake (Friedman, 1970). When a corporate executive acts voluntarily, he is “acting as a principle, not an agent; he is spending his money or time or energy…” (Friedman, 1970,

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.

For my current event, I choose an article based upon the management topic of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The article I choose was “A Purpose Beyond Profit”, written by Tony Schwartz, for the New York Times in 2014. As the title implies, it looks at businesses practices adopted by corporations that have surpassed just obeying regulatory laws to actually encompassing many sustainability programs to help society, even if means lowering their profits. In a meticulous analysis of the article, “A Purpose Beyond Profit”, I will summarize the main points of the author, show the important factors that support the main idea(s), reveal any holes in the main ideas, and its supporting arguments; further more I will provide counter-arguments to the basis of the article, and will discuss management theories that are applied in businesses today.

In his paper, The Social Responsibilities of Business is to Increase its Profits (Friedman, 1970), Milton Friedman discusses social responsibility and what he feels it means in the business arena. He goes on to say “A corporation is an artificial person” (Friedman, 1970) and since this is not a real person, cannot have any responsibilities. While a corporation or business has a leader or board of directors, Friedman states these individuals cannot make decisions on social responsibility without eating into the profits of the company, the employee’s wages, or even the price that the customer has to pay for the item.

The benefit to business of good Corporate Social Responsibility is difficult to quantify as it varies depending on the nature of the enterprise. Some scholars believe that there is a business justification for CSR. That is, what is good for the environment and society will be good for company profitability. And studies have shown a slightly positive correlation between CSR and financial gain (Steiner and Steiner, 2006). However, as Freidmanism claims, the first responsibility of business is to make enough profit to cover the costs for the future. If this social responsibility is not met, no other responsibilities can be (Hargreaves, 2006). Therefore it is critical that CSR activities are included in strategy formulation and that the level of resources devoted to CSR is determined like any other strategy – through cost/benefit analysis. Corporations will not throw money away…they need to see it

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

A company’s objective is always to make achievable profit. According to the research, CSR wants both companies to make high profit and let the society benefit.2 Even though, we cannot definitely consider that society does benefit eventually. Nearly all companies that work together with CSR have other hidden thoughts. Since CSR is a legal corporation,3 businesses use the cooperation to profit. For instance; imagine a company would spend its shareholders money to improve the environment for their employees. They would not use the money of their shareholders if they would not see profit in it.4 It is rather ridiculous to use the shareholders money for their profit. In that they cooperate with CSR, nobody can see their absurd thought behind. Indeed it is an intellectual force that businesses use. From the research article, we know that CSR essentially just has to build a company’s long term value and profit.5 However, as long as they do not see the ulterior motives and the misappropriation of the business against them, their actions are rather inept and expedient for the society and the employees.

This discussion will begin with one of the earliest and most quoted critiques of CSR by Milton Friedman (1970). Friedman’s view was that an employee has a responsibility to conduct the business according to the owner’s desire, which is generally to make as much money as possible, while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom (Friedman, M., 1970). Friedman goes on to state that if a person has responsibilities to his family, his city, his church etc. then these are the social responsibilities of individuals, not business (Friedman, M., 1970). According to Friedman, nothing that takes the focus away from

Corporate social responsibility is a controversial matter that regarding businesses’ ethics especially those that only obeys the law and does not care for the social harm they have caused. There are numerous occasions where the companies harms the society and communities more than the benefits they provide. The case of Samarco 2015 Mine Disaster is one of the occasion that occurred due to negligence as they chose not to follow a single safety regulation of the dam which caused a calamity that damaged the ecosystem and affect the people living in the state of Minas Gerais.