The social responsibility of a business Essay

Nowadays, the idea of affable responsibilities supposes that the corporation has not only sparing and legal obligations, scarcely too certain responsibilities to caller which express beyond these obligations. Moreover, affable duty is the obligation of decision achievers to say actions which protect and improve the welf ar of society as a whole along with their own interests. In other words, virtually all definitions of CSR hold the notion that corporations have obligations toward society beyond their scotch obligations to shareholders.Yet more authors have argued and still near continue to argue that complaisant function should not cater to the society at tumescent but only to the organisations own interests. For instance, some deliberate that business has only two responsibilities to attend the elementary canons of everyday face-to-face civility (honesty, good faith and so on ) and to seek somatic gain. Therefore, the definitions of CSR appear to fall under two g eneral school of thoughts and throughout this study, we made an attempt to designate that CSR is not limited only to stinting duty.Literature ReviewThe roots of CSR can be traced nates to the medieval era. According to May et al. (2007), various questions regarding organizations impact on society have been present for centuries. In fact, the incarnate form and modern labor union were derived from the early medieval guild (May et al., 2007). In the 1870s large corporations began to have a significant impact on different aspects of society, including the environment, employees, customers, and the public as a whole.Although at that place are legion(predicate) definitions of CSR available, we centre our attention on more(prenominal) recent concepts of CSR. According to Richardson, Welker and Hutchinson (1999), CSR behaviours can be defined as discretionary actions undertaken by companies that are intended to advance their social issues. Joyner, Payne & Raiborn (2002) noted that C SR are categories of economic, legal, ethical and discretionary activities of a business entity as adapted to the values and scenes from society. They besides added that, CSR are the sanctioned expectations of the phoner regarding initiatives that take theform of protection to public health, public safety, and the environment. In this concept, they explained that values and ethics exercise the extent of a corporations perceived social responsibleness that is influenced by societal activities, norms or standard.In todays world, CSR can be defined as regards to all aspects of business behaviour so that the impacts of these activities are in bodiedd in every collective agenda (Orgrizek, 2001 Coldwell, 2001). So, with the literatures definition of CSR, it can be concluded that CSR is the continuing commitment taken by business organizations to streng then(prenominal) their ethical concepts and social intimacy in society, contribute to economic development, sponsor charitable prog rams, and improve the quality of the workforce and also the growth of service provided. However on the other hand, Freeman & Liedtka (1991) argue that CSR can promote incompetence by leading the managers to get themselves involved in areas beyond their expertise, that is, trying to repair societys ill.To resume up, those CSR theories and approaches are foc recitationd on four main blooms(1) Long term profit maximization,(2) Responsible use of power,(3) Social demand integration, and(4) Achieving a good society.The adoption of the approaches in CSR on some level reflects the motivations of a company behind its CSR implementation.Discussion & FindingsIs CSR limited to economic duty?The evolution of international markets, easy and tatty communication structures, increased consumer awareness, wider distribution of risk, environmental awareness, and advert for global equality have put more emphasis on the social responsibility of corporations. Many organisations have introduced new policy instruments to promote integrated citizenship and corporate social responsibility. As mentioned above, thither exists mainly two school of thoughts, some believe that social responsibility is limitedonly to economic duty that is the welfare of an organisations stockholders while others believe that organizations should adopt a broader view of its responsibilities that includes not only stockholders, but many a(prenominal) other constituencies as well, including employees, suppliers, customers, the local anesthetic community, local, state, and federal governments, environmental groups, and other special interest groups.Firstly, the neoclassical paradigm of management explains ethics and corporate social responsibility as nothing but a new strategic instrument to guarantee long-term shareholder value. As Milton Friedman wrote long ago The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. He argues that there is one and only one social responsibility of a business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in centripetal and free competition without deception or fraud. Milton Friedmans claim that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase its profits places businesses into an adversarial relation to society. That is, businesses become the enemies, the exploiters, of the society of which they are a part.His statement implies that a business is allowed to behave in a socially irresponsible, and even socially destructive, manner, if this increases its profit. There are ship canal of increasing a business profits which are damaging to the society of which it is a part. Indeed, it is a goal of business to seek to externalize all cost. Thus, to pollute, to ignore histrion safety regulations, to engage in magic trick if not fraud, etc. If the business is in competition, and these things are permitted, it must do them, s ince its competitors, similarly situated, will also do these things. Its competitors, if allowed to externalize costs by polluting, will do so, and so it must also. Its competitors, if allowed to externalize costs by skimping on worker safety, will do so, and so it must do so also. Equally, many authors like doorman and Jensen, agree to Milton Friedman statement and they also argue that social responsibility is only an economic duty.They articulate arguments to demonstrate the irreconcilability of economic aims with broader social concerns. Michael Porter argues that corporate philanthropy is only meaningful as a part of the economic strategy of a firm while Michael Jensen maintains that it is logically impossible for a company to serve more than one objective. Moreover, Drucker (1984) had the opinionthat business turns a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, human competence, into well paid jobs, and into wealth. Therefore, Drucke r also argued that social responsibility is limited to economic duty. Although these kinds of arguments can be defined in hostel to emphasize the economic advantages of corporate social responsibility and economic advantages of corporate social responsibility and the economic duties of corporations, they do not take the broader role that corporate citizenship plays in society. The world is changing and nowadays corporations are now held accountable not entirely by the government, but also by the public. somatic responsibility must now take into account how dealings with customers, shareholders and employees are seen by the world. Large global corporations know that masses are honoring them and that any wrongdoing will not go unnoticed. Many companies have a social conscience, sue employees fairly and try to do the best for their shareholders while trying to be socially responsible. There are, however, many other corporations who see nothing wrong with employing third world cou ntry workers to get down their products. It is only out-of-pocket to groups who monitor such activities that these issues become public. Many corporations have been forced into taking corporate responsibility at a broader level that is now businesses do not limit corporate responsibility only to economic duty. They know that it does not make good business sense to be seen as a company that is damaging the world that we live in. Huge penalties and fines also await corporations that break ethical and environmental laws.Corporate responsibility has a huge impact not only on the local community, but also on the world. Its affects are social, economic and environmental. Bad and good corporate responsibility has effects that reach from the worker in the third world country to the air that we breathe. Furthermore, a growing number of writers over the coating quarter of a century have recognized that the activities of an organization impact upon the external environment and gave suggest ed that such an organization should therefore be accountable to a wider audience than simply its shareholders. In the 1970s many writers evincing concern with the social performance of a business, as a member of society at large.This concern was stated by Aukerman (1975) who argued that big business was recognizing the need to adapt to a new social mode of community accountability, but that the orientation of business to financialresults was inhibiting social responsiveness. Similarly, Mc Donald and Puxty (1979) maintain that companies are no longer the instruments of shareholders alone but exist within society and so therefore have responsibilities to that society, and that there is therefore a shift towards the greater accountability of companies to all participants. Moreover, author like Carroll (1979 2008, 500) stated that The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that a society has of organizations at a given point in time.Carrolls definition is ofttimes pictured in the above CSR Pyramid, and is where many CSR practitioners and theoreticians start. As can be seen above, he argued that companies should have economic responsibilities. Obviously, without making a profit then a company will cease to exist and CSR dies. However, the key issue is that CSR is not anti-profits, simply is all almost how profits are made The economic responsibilities cited in the definition refer to societys expectation that organizations will produce good and services that are needed and desired by customers and sell those goods and services at a reasonable price. Organizations are expected to be efficient, profitable, and to keep shareholder interests in mind. Carroll then goes on to mention legal responsibilities but doesnt consider those countries where the law is ignored (corrupt Governments for instance).The legal responsibilities pertain to the expectation that organizations will comply with the laws set down by society to govern competition in the marketplace. Organizations have thousands of legal responsibilities governing almost every aspect of their operations, including consumer and product laws, environmental laws, and employment laws. honorable responsibilities come next, but it seems that ethical behavior is not so easy to define. It concerns societal expectations that go beyond the law, such as the expectation that organizations will conduct their affairs in a fair and just way. This means that organizations are expected to do more than just comply with the law, but also make proactive efforts to anticipate and meet the norms of society even if those norms are not formally enacted in law.At the top of the pyramid is philanthropy. This may involve such things as philanthropic support of programs benefiting a community or the nation. It may also involve donating employee expertise and time to worthy causes. But in mostcases, philanthropy is seen as a first step toward CSR and all the other levels are often ignored by most businesses. Therefore, Caroll argues that business ethics, values-driven management, and corporate social responsibility are standards of governance that make it possible conceive of the corporation as both an economic instrument and a good corporate citizen.ConclusionThe importance of serving the society where the companies are operating is a legal and moral responsibility for both the public and private companies. Big companies are always exploiting the resources of a place and they should compensate for that. Companies should record that, it can stay in the market with the help of the customers and the society in which it operates alone. Neither financial abilities nor the pain governance or management will help the companies in achieving their long term goals. In order to achieve long term goals, the companies need to execute their social responsibilities in a fruitful manner.On a concluding note, corporate social responsibility is not helping the poor and needy people alone. The company should keep morality and ethics in all its operations in order to fully execute their social responsibilities. Companies should never try to exploit the natural resources injudiciously. Moreover they should never engage in activities which are harmful to the environment. In short, corporate social responsibility is a wide topic which includes a companys commitment to the society, stakeholders and the environment in which it operates.REFERENCESArchie B. Carroll, Ann K. Buchholtz Business & Society Ethics and Stakeholder Management David Crowther Gler Aras Corporate Social responsibilityDavis Keith, L Blomstrom Robert, 2002 Business & Society Environment & Responsibility 3rd variation MC Graw Hill International Edition. Mark S. Schwartz. Corporate Social Responsibility An Ethical Approach Porter M.E & Kramer M.2006 Strategy & Society, The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Busine ss Review.