Corporate Social Responsibility - Coursework Example

Corporate Social Responsibility Introduction Today, corporate principles have become a of concern in both corporate community as well as the wider society. Ethics can be described as the morals that individuals and businesses hold. Although domestic and outside forces manipulate many companies, three matters shape issues in commerce. These are corporate, individual, and systematic matters. The systematic aspects examine ethical principles in financial, political, lawful, and other societal arrangements in which the company functions. An illustration of this would be the issue of ethics concerning the existing laws that relate to accounting structures. Rules control the dealings of people because they originate from penalties with the domestic or federal administration. Individuals tend to be wary of elevated authorities more than of the penalties of committing some mistakes. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) essentially advocates for business establishments to show responsibility towards environmental as well as social factors, and to be held accountable to its community for all its productive operations. Businesses are usually a big part of their communities. Their functions have an important effect on the wider society and its potential economy. Businesses have a responsibility for observing the social responsibility idea without the local government having to compel them to do so (Beatty and Samuelson 2006). Corporate concerns seek to address questions of the morality of domestic activities such as strategies, practices, and managerial structure. Corporate concerns are grounded in corporate customs. If a corporation prizes capital gains over human capital, it will retrench members of staff to save capital. Alternatively, a business that treasures its workers is more likely find other expenses to cut and retain its members of staff. The notion of ethical standards rises from the subject of personal issues. Individual matters are concerns that are based on employees within a business, along with their actions and choices. Moral standards are principles that are set by the people no other governing organisations. Hence, each person has a right to defend what he or she believes in. Decisions in an industry influence all tiers of the directorial composition, which in turn shapes the existences of all stakeholders of the corporation. Therefore, the issue of moral standards has emerged due to the existing corruption in many big industries. As a result of the worldwide impact of great corporations, society’s eye is chiefly directed towards outsized companies. However, ethical matters also crop up in small industries. In big companies, it seems simpler to disconnect personal principles from corporate ethics. In small companies, the rapport with one’s colleagues becomes a sub-family connection and this makes it that much harder to craft an “ethical” judgment. The overall aspects that control company ethics originate from personal principles and effect on others. It is generally presumed that small industries do not require a set of laws to defend ethics. This, however, is not reality. Average sized as well as smaller corporations have a larger proclivity for being involved in dubious commercial practice in comparison to large firms. There is a gap in the public’s sensitivity to the ethical dealings in big and small corporations. Additionally, the principles of excellence impinge on both organisations in different ways when executed (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen 2010). When an employer determines that unprincipled behaviour will not be abided in his organisation, the outcome is the strengthening of the business culture and the avoidance behaviours. However, in a small company the price of a zero tolerance policy can be overwhelming. The expenses associated with substituting an employee in a big firm are easily extended across the whole entity as a fixed charge of conducting business; this is not a reality in small industries. The employer-worker connection in the small companies is more informal, by nature, and personal. This flexibility allows a more casual agreement to be made between the administration and employees. Discovering a “win-win” resolution can result in the avoidance, by employees, of moral hazards. In a big and publically traded corporation, this agreement cannot be made. This is because not all of those who are residual plaintiffs (proprietors) can be spoken for. In the big, publically owned businesses, the zero tolerance strategy should be implemented. However, in a privately owned corporation, a modified zero tolerance procedure can be functional. Citizens tend to favor small industries when moral situations and predicaments are present. This is because they sense that small companies and underprivileged individuals lack the assets to urge the decision-making mill to function in their interests. Society tends to feel that the financially challenged individuals are vulnerably at the mercy of the unpredictable forces of globalisation and corruption (Frynas 2009). Therefore, these smaller capitalists must make a go of it in the outlaw arena of the shadow wealth market. Many people also believe that such small corporations exist in continuous fear of criminal suits and are forced to “safeguard” themselves by greasing the palms of the officials and agents of the state. Big municipalities in developing nations have constructed a casual shadow economy because the existing “bureaucratic channels” leave them no possibilities of survival (Beck and Woolfson 2005). This is because their governmental administrations have too many requirements, approvals, and stipulations, which work mainly as discouragements that prompt openings of corruption to be created so that businesses can survive. A bribe given to a government member of staff by a citizen is usually viewed in a different light than the same act with an expatriate conducting the bribing. On the brighter side, inside SMEs, moral responsibilities are part of business as usual, they are not a subject that as an after-the-fact verification on business. Public responsibility is not an issue that involves the contribution of some profits that were generated where some reputational significance can be attained. Instead, for many SMEs public responsibility occurs in the course of generating significance for all concerned. This is to be a more protracted means of observing about communal responsibility. However, it will only thrive as a practice, if the general support for it can be garnered. It is in this area that much more has to be attained. Most large business establishments view the CSR concept as a progressive theory that should be implemented. The implementation of a CSR program calls for companies to realise some type of environmental or social actions. Both average sized as well as large businesses need to implement CSR programs. Though small sized businesses face low regulatory restrictions, they also have to deal with the market pressure to endorse CSR practices. Business is a necessity for the development of the global economy. It is the actual fuel that drives and sustains the society. In general, free market economies are the best ways for managing economic activity. Business organisations in market economies improve the lifestyles of the majority of people all over the world. Moreover, business can also contribute to problems that negatively affect the quality of life. Business organisations are often subject to alarming scandals such as negligence, fraud, and negligence. For instance, pollution can be said to be a result of the ineffectiveness of the processes in production (Gyves and OHiggins 2008). This wastefulness generates negative externalities that in the past, businesses have dislodged onto their environments. While businesses are mostly formed to create profits, the importance of how the business organisation conducts itself cannot be ignored. Businesses have to obey the regulations of their nations, but should also act morally in cases where there are no evident regulations, and deal decisively with any damages brought about by their actions in a environmental as well as social context (Arena 2004). This triple objective of realising social, environmental as well as economic goals is the basis of what is generally identified corporate social responsibility. Benefits of corporate social responsibility The term ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ was first used in 1953; with the writing of Bowens Social Responsibility of Businessmen” (Corporate watch report 2009). The development of CSR came as people began to consider how to address the negative effects of business organisations on their communities. CSR quickly developed beyond being something that people in academic circles discussed to being a program that was implemented in companies as well as SEOs. Corporate social responsibility brings diverse benefits both externally as well as internally to the businesses that are involved in diverse ventures (Beck and Woolfson 2005). Externally, CSR generates a positive image among the members of its society, and brings a lot of esteem from other businesses (Hawkins 2006). CSR also provides chances of temporary employment opportunities for people who will be involved in its implementation. In addition, seeking to fulfil the objectives that society views as being important can result in increased sales. The local consumers can be a vital source of revenue for the company. If a business invests towards improving its reputation in its community, it will find workers more easily and be able to hold on to them (Blomback and Wigren 2009). Business establishments also have a big impact on their environments. A company that chooses to clean up after itself and not deposit harmful materials in its environment will be better received by its community. Companies that recycle used products also benefit from the support of their societies. Internally, corporate social responsibility generates a sense of tryst and loyalty among the workers in the corporate ethics. It enhances the functional effectiveness of the business, and is usually accompanied by improved productiveness and quality. More significantly, it serves as a calming diversion from the everyday workplace operations, and brings a feeling of meaning and contentment to their lives. The workers will be more inspired and, therefore, be more creative. Lastly, CSR helps businesses to make sure that they observe the regulatory requirements in their nations (Jennings 2006). CSR importance and its relevance today In the present world, consumers can easily access information regarding any particular company on the internet. They are, therefore, have ways to hold a company accountable and even negatively affect the company’s sales. Many companies today have to observe CSR rules because they would not be seen as serious organisations by their clients if they did not. As Peter Duker stated, “The 21st century will be the era of the social sector company. The more money, economy, and knowledge grow global, the more that the community will be of prime importance” (Lydenberg 2005). According to David Chandler and William B. Werther, there are some three trends that will in future determine practical corporate social responsibility. These are: Increasing prosperity: Consumers in the upper classes can pay for premium brands. Moreover, the consumers from the lower classes might be reluctant to more so much for a mere brand. They might instead choose to invest in businesses that are involved in the improvement of their basic functions. Shifting social expectations: It is quite normal for consumers to expect a lot from businesses whose commodities they purchase. However, with recent scandals in formerly respected and esteemed financial enterprises, a considerable number of consumers have lost their trust in the regulatory bodies that manage companies. Globalisation and Information Flow: With the easy access to all types of data, companies are increasingly being responsible for their activities. In the present age, bad or dissatisfied comments from an aggrieved consumer can actually compel the other consumers to boycott the commodities produced by the accused company (Bornstein 2004). Some of the ways through which companies can ensure that their Corporate Social Responsibility policies are successfully carried out include: 1) By improving the communication between business organisations and their top management 2) Selecting the correct people or employees to oversee the CSR positions 3) Ensuring that there is a good association between suppliers, customers, and stakeholders 4) Conducting yearly CSR audits 5) Initiating a feedback process so that a company can determine how far it has gone in implementing CSR programs and realising how much more it has to do. The organisational activities of Petrol as well as Oil industries, especially, can have serious effects on the environment (Ofori and Hinson 2007). Oil companies should not merely prioritise operations as well as functions that create profits, but also those that improve society. There are three main laws of CSR. These include: accountability, sustainability, and transparency. Sustainability concerns how the actions that have been effected in the present are likely to affect the future in terms of opportunities that will exist then, as well as the options that will be available then. For instance, if a corporation participates in removing a large amount of natural resources, it has to take into account how the loss of those resources will affect the future (Smith 2007). Accountability concerns business organisations taking responsibility for the factors that shape of affect the external environment. If an organisation’s procedures negatively affect the environment, it should be ready to compensate the communities where it is located and actively seek for a less destructive alternative to realising its objectives. Transparency is about a company being allowing people or even its own workers to be able to freely report on the activities that take place within it and not deceiving the public about its shortcomings or disasters (Drucker 2006). According to (Marin, Ruiz and Rubio 2009), the first thing that corporations should do is actively seek for ways in which its operations can be streamlined in such a way that they ensure that there is a reduction of wastage. There has also been a increasing pressure for corporations all over the world to assume a leading role in discovering ways of dealing with the worlds socio-economic concerns, particularly where the ruling government is unable to conclusively deal with these problems. Oil companies, unfortunately, have in the past not had a good record of dealing in a fair manner with the communities that live in the areas where their factories are located. A good example is the Shell Company in Nigeria (Carlisle and Faulkner 2004). Factors ignored by Oil Companies in the Implementation of CSR In the African continent, the largest producer of oil is Nigeria. Nigeria is also one of the biggest nations that are members of (OPEC) the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The presence of oil in Nigeria has affected serious political changes over the years and provides more than 80% of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. However, the oil reserves have not successfully turned Nigeria into one of the richest nations in the world; a quality that characterises many oil producing nations. The oil in Nigeria only enriches a select few who are part of the ruling class. With a per capita GDP of merely U.S. $260 annually, Nigeria is still one of the earth’s poorest nations many decades after the discovery of oil. In the past, the oil boom has been the main reason why successive politicians have sought to govern Nigeria. The Niger Delta, a principal source of oil reserves, has the largest wetlands in Africa. It covers more than 20,000 square kilometers. Of this extended area, mangrove forests cover 6,000 square kilometers. There are also extensively wooded areas with many exceptional species of flora and fauna. In spite of the Royal Shell Oil Company having extracted oil from the area for decades, there is still hardly any first rate independent scientific information on the lasting effects of hydrocarbon effluence on the Delta. The extraction of oil in the region has obviously seriously spoiled the environment as well as the sources of revenue for the tribes that live around the Shell Company. Like Shell, oil companies operating in different areas all over the world are usually quick to stress that they are involved in numerous programs that improve adjacent communities. Still, Nigerian environmental regulations, which are in many ways comparable to those in developed nations, are poorly enforced and hardly investigated. The Shell Corporation’s oil producing past in Nigeria is famous because it has been existent for many years and also because Shell has in the past sided with the Nigerian government in endeavoring to destroy any opposition to its operations among ethnic tribes. To protect its investments, the Shell Corporation has not only gone against certain rules that govern the behavior of a corporation operating in foreign soil, but has even acted in league with successive military Nigerian governments to defraud the Nigerian population of its share of oil proceeds. In the nineties, with growing discontentment among the local populations that lived adjacent to Shell’s production facilities, Shell requested the then Nigerian government for more security. It would provide the policemen who were availed with arms as well as money. It soon became apparent that the security operations that Shell wanted to effect were actually terror campaigns to scare the local Ogoni tribesmen into remaining silent about the degradation of their environment. Charges were brought against the leaders of a newly formed group known as ‘The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People’. In coordination with Shell, the Nigerian government maligned the leaders of this group, claiming that they were responsible for kidnappings as well as plane hijackings. The leaders were finally executed. Shell’s high ranking officials appointed themselves as the government’s henchmen, going as far as attending tribunals in order to ensure that the most well known leader of the The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People’ Ken Saro Wiwa, would be executed (Martin 2004). Shell even bribed different people to testify that Ken Saro Wiwa was involved in the murder of Ogoni elders. Just thirty one days after the executions were carried out Shell entered a new agreement with the Nigerian government to spend $4 billion in the establishment of a liquefied natural gas business venture. Understandably, Shell has since then tried to rectify its sullied past records by involving the tribes that live in areas where it extracts oil in development initiatives. Today, Shell likes to depict itself as a caring corporation that is struggling to build a clean reputation in Nigeria. In spite of this, there is scarcely any assessment of its CSR schemes privileging data from host communities like members of the Ogoni tribe (Mckinsey & Co 2006). Despite the evident universality of CSR initiatives among transnational firms that operate in Africa, in most cases, the expectations of CSR among stakeholders in different nations are not identical. The reality of acute poverty that is experienced in the Niger Delta, for instance, puts different demands in oil corporations functioning there than would be the case if it was developed nation that had the oil reserves. Although the Shell Corporation has initiated different development activities that are meant to improve the living standards of the communities around the oil delta like schools, hospitals, electricity, scholarships, and roads, the communities still perceive this as being insufficient when compared to the immense profits that Shell has reaped in the last five decades of extracting oil from their land. An oil company’s CSR program can never be successful in achieving the main objective of supporting sustainable growth if it is divorced from the nation’s general development concerns (Sheth and Babiak 2010). Apart from being associated with the broader structure of the host nation’s development strategy, a practical CSR policy also has to be perceptive of the special local circumstances in its community, as is evident in the Niger Delta case. Many times in the past, the CSR initiatives of oil companies have been unsuccessful in convincing local communities of their earnestness (Cummings and Worley 2008). These initiatives are usually simple and fail to match with a development plan for the host community as well as the host nation (Slack 2006). A CSR model that enjoys global appeal but is locally incompatible with reality and therefore disliked affects the possibility of the business being successful in that area (Hawkins 2006). This is evident from the past violent protests that have marked Shell’s stormy association with the Ogoni people. The essential issues that oil corporations should ensure that they address in their CSR initiatives in foreign nations should seek to answer the question “What are the most urgent development concerns that are negatively affecting the host communities where the oil production facilities will be situated, and who are the central stakeholders?” Recently, oil reserves have been located in additional nations like Kenya and Uganda on the African continent. This means that there will be more multinational corporations seeking to get permits to extract oil in African nations in the near future. In seeking to answer the important questions about CSR initiatives that are mentioned above, it is particularly important for oil corporations operating in developing nations to comprehend that in Africa, unlike in Western nations where the basic needs have mostly been met, socio-economic concerns are more urgent than tomorrows unquestionably credible but far-flung environmental worries. Instead of concentrating too much on future requirements, the capacity to meet the present requirements of host communities should be clear in the sustainability principles of the oil firms. References Arena, C. (2004) Cause for success: 10 companies that put profits second and came in first, New World Library, Novato. Beatty, J. & Samuelson, L. (2006) Business law and the legal environment, South-Western College/West, Mason. Beck, M. & Woolfson, C. (2005) Corporate social responsibility failures in the oil industry, Baywood Publishing Company, New York. Blomback, A. & Wigren, C. (2009) Challenging the importance of size as determinant for CSR activities’, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 255-270. Bornstein, D. (2004) How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas, Oxford University Press, New York. Carlisle, Y.M. & Faulkner, D.O. (2004) ‘Corporate social responsibility: a stages framework’, European Business Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 143-52. Corporate watch report. (2009) viewed 10 February 2013 from . Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2008) Organisation development, & change, Cengage Learning, Stamford. Drucker, P. (2006) Innovation and entrepreneurship, Harper Business, New York. Du S., Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S, (2010) Maximising business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 276, pp. 8-19. Frynas, J.G. (2009) Beyond corporate social responsibility: oil multinationals and social challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gyves, S. & OHiggins, E. (2008) ‘Corporate social responsibility: an avenue for sustainable benefit for society and the firm? Society & Business Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 207-223. Hawkins D, (2006) Corporate social responsibility: balancing tomorrows sustainability and todays profitability, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Jennings, M.M. (2006) The seven signs of ethical collapse: how to spot moral meltdowns in companies. ... before it’s too late, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Lydenberg, S. (2005) Corporations and the public interest, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco Publishers. Marin, L. Ruiz, S. & Rubio, A. (2009) The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 8, pp. 65-78. Martin, J.G. (2004) ‘Sustainable development: impacts of current trends on oil and gas development’, Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law. Mckinsey & Co, (2006) Organising for successful change management, The McKinsey quarterly, New York. Ofori, D.F. & Hinson, R.E. (2007) ‘Corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspectives of loading firms in ghana, Corporate Governance, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 178-193. Sheth, H. & Babiak, K. (2010) Beyond the game: perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 94, pp. 433-450. Slack, K. (2006) ‘Putting teeth in corporate social responsibility’, The Punch 5th December, p. 16. Smith, A.D. (2007) Making the case for the competitive advantage of corporate social responsibility, Business Strategy Series, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 186-195; Read More