The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility - Book Report/Review Example

The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility Introduction The title of this article suffices to introduce the reader into its subject matter without preempting the content. It is desirable that the article opens with a history of the concept of corporate social responsibility so that a reader new to this field is provided with a good background of the concept. The mention of the role that the authorities including Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have played in developing the concept of corporate social responsibility is helpful. This contextualizes the roles that these authorities play to the present day. The introductory paragraphs, especially the third, are a good abstract delimiting for the reader the scope of the paper. After reading these paragraphs, a reader is able to decide if they would want to read on or not (Carroll 39). Credibility, robust understanding, and clarity The article refers to and documents the attempts of other authors who engaged the concept of corporate social responsibility and this builds into its credibility. Additionally, acknowledging other people’s work would enhance the admissibility of this article by the scientific community because this shows that it is not idiosyncratic. Besides, documenting a number of definitions of corporate social responsibility by different authors offers readers with a robust understanding of the concept because they get to see it from the varied ways that the different authors saw it. The introduction to the composition of the pyramid and the subsequent consideration of each element individually lays necessary emphasis and this add onto the clarity of the content of the article (Carroll 39). Figures and Marxist view The components of corporate social responsibility have been explained well and the accompanying figures are an added advantage. Dwelling on these figures, whereas they have capture the salient features of each component adequately, their organization can hinder their supporting role. For example, the figure containing the features of both the economic and legal components is located further from the excerpts that address these components and this makes it difficult for a reader to connect the two. The assertion made in the explanation about the economic component that other components are based on it is Marxist. In Marxist view of the society, the economy is seen as the base and all other parts of the society are seen as the superstructure (Carroll 41). Social contract and interplay ethics and law The use of the concept of social contract in explaining the legal responsibilities of business is suitable. This is because the concept of social contract charges that both business and society has obligations to fulfill to one another and this is true even in real life. The interplay between ethics and law is explained well in this article and the confusion that plagues the debate of what comes before the other demystified. The importance of mentioning that there exist levels of ethical performance is crucial because leaving this out would have led readers to believing that ethical performance is unsanctioned. The statements explaining ethical components concretize its understanding and a reader is better placed to discern ethical business conduct and the conduct that is unethical (Carroll 41). Conflict between components of corporate social responsibility and Milton Friedman’s idea It is insightful to note the difference between ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. The possibility of confusing the two suggests that many of what a business may do in the name of ethical responsibilities might be philanthropic. The assertion that the components of corporate social responsibility are conflicting is quite on point. However, the claim that looking at this conflict as being a business’ struggle of whether to make profit or show benevolence to the society should be left to the reader to decide on their stance and not labeled as an oversimplification. The pragmatic articulation of the four components is quite applicable and workable. The observation that Milton Friedman, in his assertion that business does not have concern for social issues, supported business’ conformity to law and ethics is quite persuading (Carroll 43). Stakeholder Undoubtedly, the article’s conception of stakeholder is expansive. Whereas a reader might have thought that stakeholder stands for those who have an investment in a business, the article has extended it to include customers, employees, and business owners. The concepts of legitimacy and power have been explained well in regards to how the management of a business goes about deciding who to attend and who to put on hold. The explanation helps the reader understand the cause of the failure or success of the endeavor of people, regardless of their number, in trying to force the business to grant them a certain demand such as a pay rise. It is helpful for the article to explain that satisfying the needs of all stakeholders is not easy and this prompts readers to understand that it can involve collision and peacemaking until amicable resolutions are made (Carroll 43). Stakeholder/responsibility matrix, amoral management The stakeholder/responsibility provided in this article can be instrumental in assessing whether a business is meeting all of its corporate social responsibilities. The concept of amoral management is rare and this article can be applauded for the insight it has provided on this concept. Additionally, this explanation helps readers understand the cause of the indifference with which some business people act. It is impressive to note that when considering stakeholder orientation, it is important to be cognizant of the varying nature of different stakeholder groups. The examples of how each moral type attends different stakeholder groups are sufficient. Readers can identify with these examples because they may have experienced, directly or indirectly, this in real life in ether the capacity of the stakeholder or manager (Carroll 46, 47). In conclusion, the content of this article has implication for managers and decision makers. The stakeholder/responsibility matrix that this article proposes can be used as a checklist for moral management while the stakeholder orientation can provide an assessment scale of the kind of management employed. The conclusion that amoral management can prevail without a leader knowing it is one that requires consideration. The article closes poorly without clear indications that it is approaching closure. That notwithstanding, despite the fact that this article was written more than twenty years ago, its content has many practical and relevant applications in the contemporary business world. Work Cited Carroll, Archie. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August, 1991: 39 – 48. Print. Read More