Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay define corporate social responsibility
Essay define corporate social responsibility
What is Corporate Social Responsibility
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay define corporate social responsibility
Fleming and Jones, in their book, The end of CSR, fundamentally question the existence of Corporate Social Responsibility because they think it ‘never really began’ (Fleming and Jones, 2013). The reason for the authors’ abovementioned stance is highlighted in the quote where they assert that ‘social value is subordinated to economic rationality’ in capitalism (Fleming and Jones, 2013). The current government provisions follow the same logic and try to outsource education, healthcare in order to implement business ontology and maximize profit. They agree with Friedman’s view on capitalism that businesses do not have social responsibilities. Therefore, every action of business is taken to fulfill its ‘sole purpose’ (Friedman). They consider that CSR evolved to pursue the same goal practices, including ‘marketing, branding, recruitment and employee motivation’. The writers agree with the purpose of practicing CSR because they support Aristotle’s view about “doing well by doing good” (Aristotle). Although, by pursuing CSR the corporations will gain ‘competitive advantage’ there are many reasons against it. Firstly, there is an intrinsic tussle between the company’s primary function (reducing cost, capital control, and profit maximization) and to be socially responsible (Fleming and Jones, 2013). The private sector’s goals substantially differ from the government’s and the third sector’s. The current researches show the interrelationship between financial performance and CSR. However, if firms were not considered to make only more profit by CSR practices, researchers would not need to examine solely the IV. Quadrant (Enlightened self-interest) of the BAIM model on implemented CSR practices (Fleming and Jones, 2013). Secondly, prope... ... middle of paper ... ...aunch independent researches in this area. However, as these schools are dependent on corporate donations, it is not very likely to happen. They draw our attention to the fact that criticizing the regulations will not do a lot but people should question the ‘possibility of transforming the dynamics to a new form of social reproduction’(Fleming). They also conclude that CSR functions as parasite because it ‘undermines the protest of stakeholders’. They offer to create more win-win situations, ‘having to alter fundamentally the nature of the corporate form and the dominance of economic rationality’. Focusing on the reduction and transformation of III. Quadrant (corporate social irresponsibility) into IV. Quadrant (enlightened self-interest). Until real efforts are made to tackle the most crucial problems engulfing the CSR practices, CSR cannot be taken seriously.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the way a corporation achieves a balance between its economic, social, and environmental responsibilities in its operations so as to address shareholder and other stakeholder expectations. In general, when firms hold this wider encouraging role on the public by being engaged with stakeholders, a variety of profit can be produced for both company and the stakeholders. A key inclination is the combination of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into the organization strategy, culture, mission and communications. By incorporating corporate citizenship into the company it is no longer an additional “nice thing to do” or something made to obey laws or regulations. Instead, corporate responsibility has become something business leaders and workforce want to engage in, frequently because executives who believe in the long-term see business profit. The four types of social responsibilities a...
An organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) drives them to look out for the different interests of society. Most business corporations undertake responsibility for the impact of their organizational pursuits and various activities on their customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment. With the high volume of general competition between different companies and organizations in varied fields, CSR has become a morally imperative commitment, more than one enforced by the law. Most organizations in the modern world willingly try to improve the general well-being of not only their employees, but also their families and the society as a whole.
Companies have presented investigations about their motivation towards voluntarily social and environmental as insolvent. This paper argues in agreement with Adam’s view that the goal of CSR reporting is to promote credibility and corporate image of stakeholders operating in a particular industry. Whereas companies must focus their efforts on enhancing their profitability, they should also ensure that the welfare of other stakeholders is protected.
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
A corporations CSR should be shaped in order to fit the goals of the corporation, although every corporation’s CSR should differ, since most have different goals and different communities behind them. The CSR should be molded into fitting the corporation’s goals in order to make it easier on the corporation in giving back to the community while achieving its goals. For example, a corporation located in a desert wishes to be more efficient, by reducing water usage it is not only creating lower costs, which result in higher revenue, but also helps the community by not taking up so much water. Taking this into consideration, it is critical that the corporation goals and values are established and clear throughout the corporation, they should be developed by the board or directors and CEO, and the highest managerial level should stress their importance to the rest of the corporation. By making the goals and values at the top branch of the corporate hierarchy, it will be simpler for the corporates community to develop in order to nurture those goals and values. Therefore, a corporation can reach the “shared-value,” a value for both its shareholders and community in a simpler manner that can result benefiting the corporation in the end as well. Throughout the article many examples are given of actual corporations that have benefited and changed their CSR in order to fit their goals, therefore, providing solid proof that these methods work. Nevertheless, as acknowledged by the author’s themselves, most of the corporations taken into consideration where one’s that Harvard CSR students were employed
According to Mike Peng, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the consideration and response to issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social benefits along with traditional economic gains the firm seeks. CSR is a way in which a company seeks to achieve a balance between profit, environmental concerns and social imperatives. This is known as the ‘Triple-Botto...
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 purposes for this essay, the first purpose is to descried the key principles of corporate social responsibility and explain their importance for stakeholders. Secondly, is to show how far this company follows those principles in order to be accountable to at least three of its stakeholders. In this essay, three stakeholders, environment, customers and employees will be evaluated respectively and the key principles of the stakeholders will be examined.
I begin this essay by defining CSR, there are many definitions for this term by various different theorists, and EU says that CSR is "A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." On the other hand, Sloman et al. define it as "The concept in which a firm takes into account is the interests and concerns of a community rather than just its shareholder". Davis and Blomstrom (1966), say it "Refers to a person’s obligation to consider the effects of his decisions and actions on the whole social system". These definitions differ from one another in many ways but they agree that CSR involves taking the environment into account and therefore, one must look take social responsibility.
There are also financial benefits linked to CSR. Firms which act in the best interest of the public will eventually gain a good public image and more and more customers will eventually buy their products and increase sales volume in the long term. Some scholars like Ksiezak state that a company with a bad image due to unethical practices stands the risk of seeing its products facing boycott from customers and subsequently experiencing a drop in sales (Ksiezak, 2016, pg 56). Companies can also benefit from within the company as a result of implementing CSR as Mullerat notes that, “A company that boasts of responsible behavior attracts new talent and retains good workers” (Mullerat as quoted by Ksiezak, 2016, pg 56). Moreover, a good reputation for a company can also attract investors who are keen on investing in ethical and reputable businesses. Matteo Tonello demonstrated how in the ten years preceding 2011, there was empirical evidence in the growth of socially responsible investments, a category of investment where put their funds in companies that have a strong record of CSR activities (Tonelli, 2011). Overall, CSR activities should not be just social obligations for business, as a positive correlation evidently exists between the potential of better financial performance and engaging in more CSR
Although many articles stated that profit and CSR have positive relationships, research found that factors such as labour market conditions and company’s size and so on will all influence the level of CSR in a company (Abagail and Donald, 2001). Abagail and Donald (2001) found that “there is a neutral relationship between CSR and financial performance”. Ivar (2007) thought investment on CSR will not contribute to corporate profit or companies will get very few return from CSR relative activities. More profit making by companies will not result in more CSR investment. He found that companies may not gain enough benefit from CSR, they can just meet the bottom line sometimes. If companies do thing beyond their operation and are positive at CSR, it is because of their good intention rather than purpose of gaining profits (Ivar, 2007). The way of using benefits to increasing CSR seems difficult in this situation. Ravi and Anupam (2011) showed that in order to be successful, Nestle began to help local farmers in production; they then gain good profits and reputation with the success of those farmers. Good image also helped them reduce the regulatory interventions when entered Indian markets (Ravi and Anupam, 2011). This encourage it donate more on CSR. Nevertheless,...
While the concept of an individual having responsibility is commonly recognized, modern views have lead to the emerging issue of corporate responsibility. Business Directory.com defines corporate social responsibility as, “A company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs, and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources.” But such a concept has been much disputed since at least the 1970’s.
Corporate Social Responsibility is a nature of a business to behave well and produce a general positive impact on society. This term was first generated in 1953 by H.R.Bowenes while widely considered as an important subject for business especially large firms who perceive CSR report equally as financial report, both of which are the topics the stakeholders or owners are interested in. In reality, Firms are not forced to behave as the public want to be because the CSR is quite ambiguity that we don’t know what the firms are responsible for and how far should this responsibility be. Firms before doing CSR may take a lot of considerations as this would be a cost to business if something went wrong or could be a benefit to profit when something is actually done and customers are aware of it. Thus, a theory introduced called the Triple Bottom Line by John Elkington gives an idea about balancing doing CSR and achieving market profit.
Each definitions of CSR does vary around the core characteristics based on their conceptual concentrations and particular focus, for example, under the Voluntary Characteristic, CSR see the overall voluntary activities beyond the law. The Externalities, study both, the positive ...
The classical view of CSR is a prominent ideology which business organizations are seen merely as profit-driven organizations. Simply put, businesses work for the sole purpose of making a profit. Thus, this profit motive is the sufficient and unique social identifier that separates a business organization from other institutions in society. These business organizations have a limited, yet essential role in society. Social concerns are considered important, but businesses, in the classical view, are focused solely on the economic activities and are judged accordingly. By having a limited role in society (i.e.,...
It is important to understand the importance of corporate social responsibilities. If Corporate Social Responsibility is properly maintained and emphasized by companies, it can benefit the society, economy and corporate sustainability. It can also be cost efficient to companies. also the environment . But above all effect (CSR) varies companies to companies. Where some corporates seem to make all sorts of benefits from their coporate social responsibilities but few of them are also having loss by trying to maintain CSR without properly evaluating their resources. (Porter and Kramer 2006) has said The inferences where corporates need to evaluate their CSR actions to figure out if they add