Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Corporate Social Responsibility Principles
Corporate Social Responsibility Principles
The link between company and social responsibility
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Corporate Social Responsibility Principles
Case Study: Greenlite
The following report answers three questions from a case study titled Greenlite. The case incident examines the phasing out of energy-inefficient bulbs and replacement with energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in Canada. This incident was cited from Chapter 2: Environmental Constraints on Managers -Fundamentals of Management (2014). It also explains how a company called Greenlite Lighting Corporation took advantage of the transition to become the leading producers of CFLs in the world and examines the Corporate Social Responsibility issues involved.
The report also looks at the potential health and safety concerns for two industry scenarios and suggests remedial actions for the observed concerns.
Greenlite
…show more content…
Management of businesses are also expected to act in a socially responsible manner (Robbins, DeCenzo, Coulter, & Anderson, 2014, p. 110). Behaving socially responsible is an obligation but the level of social responsibility adopted is an organizational choice (Robbins, DeCenzo, Coulter, & Anderson, 2014).
In my opinion the corporate responsibility of Greenlite should go far beyond the general concept of Classical or purely economic view, in which the social responsibility of management is to maximize profits (Robbins, DeCenzo, Coulter, & Anderson, 2014, p. 110).
Greenlite should be concerned about the potential health hazards of CFLs which may be minimal or insignificant but likely when proper care is not adopted (NRCAN, 2009). The only legal responsibility of a corporation is to maximize their profits for stockholders and a deviation towards social good is considered to be additional cost of doing business (Robbins, DeCenzo, Coulter, & Anderson, 2014, p. 110). Hence, I am of the opinion that the socio-economic view should be the business direction of
For example, that he …social objective of reducing poverty”. Thus, according to Freidman, profit maximization is the sole responsibility of a firm and spending shareholder money for the social interest is not ideal. This statement is less compelling to me as I believe social responsibility means: the right quality of life is given and human rights is not sacrificed or compromised in order to attain your opportunities or demands. Freidman illustrates that he is against social responsibility by stating: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources… without deception or fraud." Due to these reasons, I do not agree with Friedman arguments, because he believes that social interest can harm the organization’s productivity; whereas, I disagree and highly believe there are many benefits in taking lead in social interest and
(SNBC) was founded by Ken Grossman and Paul Camusi in 1979, but became operational in 1980. In addition, the company has been operational for 34 years now. The paper will discuss the integration of environmental sustainability and business operations of SNBC. According to studies and research, SNBC is committed to corporate social responsibility, especially the environment and community via environmentally friendly manufacturing processes leading to a good reputation, employee retention and attraction and profitability. The management is careful with the decisions and business operations they make regarding the environment since they affect their reputation and public
To supply the wants and needs of a consumer, society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.” (Santayana, George. Is The Tyranny Of Shareholder Value Finally Ending? So before we go into greater detail on the different perspectives related to social responsibility, one might question the meaning of social responsibility. It is generally agreed that social responsibility is defined as the business obligation to make decisions that benefit society.... ...
Debbie M. Thorne (2010). Business and Society: A Strategic Approach to Social Responsibility and Ethics.
With the advances in technology today, we are able to produce a variety of energy-efficient products, one of which is the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). Having come a long way from the energy-absorbing incandescents, CFL is clearly the choice for the future. CFLs potentially could save nonrenewable energy resources and electricity expenses because they are so efficient. When we switch over to the CFL, we no longer have to constantly replace burnt out incandescents because a CFL will last “10 times [longer than] the average life of the longest-lived incandescents” (Petrowski, 1995). In addition, for only 13 to 15 watts of electricity, the CFL delivers the equivalent light of a 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb, representing an energy savings of about 80% (Luoma, 1991). Therefore, we no longer have to drill more oil or mine more coal because if these energy efficient lights were installed in all U.S. homes over the next 20 years, “the savings in energy would equal the estimated energy content of Alaska’s entire North Slope oil fields” (Miller, 1997). Energy efficient lights could also save U.S. businesses $15-20 billion per year in electricity bills (Miller, 1997). It is evident that the potential benefit for the environment is enormous.
Milton Friedman presents a compelling argument in “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits” by arguing that businesses need to focus only on increasing their profits and integrating social responsibility will only hurt them as a company. Since “only people can have responsibilities” (Friedman 52), Friedman argues that businesses as a whole do not have any type of real responsibilities because there is not a singular person for these responsibilities to fall on. Corporate executives are people as well and may feel they have social responsibilities to society but these “are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business” (51). In terms of corporations, the businessmen are the ones that hold the responsibility of the company. Friedman argues that the only responsibility these managers hold is to those who own the corporation, the shareholders. If the individuals themselves want to contribute to social responsibility they must do it with their own money in their personal lives, but they should not use social responsibility in
Friedman’s views are that business’ main responsibility is to maximize shareholders wealth and that in doing so, they are being socially responsible. He also contends that corporations are not people and therefore they cannot be responsible for social issues.
The article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” is written by a famous economist Milton Friedman. Friedman in this article implies that shareholders are the main drivers of the corporations and he believes that it is to them corporations must be socially responsible to. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profits and return the portion of these profits to shareholders for investing in the corporation. The shareholders can themselves decide which social causes to take part in rather than assigning a corporate executive to decide on their behalf. Friedman argues that a corporation must have no social responsibility to society because its only concern is the increase profits for itself and its shareholders.
Going green in the workplace is a new trend in business. In choosing to go green in the workplace you may be challenged by an elevated initial start-up costs, however savings earned from this investment will more than pay for those initial costs in the future. Many people see this as a controversial issue, and granted it does have its own unique set of pro and cons, but if a business makes careful choices going green can prove to be very rewarding. Companies are doing this to save money on energy expenses as well as deploying it as a means to help reduce the carbon foot-print they are leaving behind.
The arguments for and against corporate social responsibility have captured two points of view. Those who believe that organizations should not be concerned about social responsibility base many of their arguments on the costs involved and whether organizations should shoulder those costs on behalf of society. And those who are in favor feel that organizations benefit from society and, therefore, have an obligation to improve it. Although there is no universal agreement, surveys and other reports express that many organizations are, becoming increasingly active in addressing social
Covey & Brown (2001) “the role of business in society has progressed over the years, from being primarily concerned with profit for sharehold¬ers to a stakeholder and community approach with a focus on corporate social responsibility”
Friedman, M., (2007). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. In W.
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.
Corporations that place an importance on corporate social responsibility usually have an easier experience when dealing with politicians and government regulators. In compare, businesses that present an irresponsible disregard for social responsibility tend to find themselves fending off various reviews and probes, often brought on at the assertion of public service organizations. The more positive the public insight is that a corporation takes social responsibility seriously; the less likely it is that innovative groups will launch public campaigns and claim government inquiries against it.