Business Care for Corporate Social Responsibility - Essay Example

Corporate Social Responsibility Name Institution Introduction Business organizations have awakened to the need for being devoted towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, majority have still been adopting some kind of philanthropic activities for its stakeholders, including employees, customers and the entire community (Lawler & Conger, 2015). CSR denotes strategies used by firms or corporations to carry out their business in a manner that is beneficial, society friendly and ethical to the community (Maimunah, 2009). Developing a strong corporate culture that emphasizes CSR competencies and values is needed to attain the synergistic benefits (Kerns, 2003). Therefore, an organization’s employees occupy an essential place in nurturing such a culture that underlines CSR competencies and values (Llopis et.al, 2003). Based on this background, this paper will argue that CSR promotion, as well as ethical business conduct is essential (Kuraitis & Waterman, nd). It will discuss and critically analyze that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Furthermore, using relevant examples, the paper will critically analyze that honoring the quadruple bottom line is a moral minimum that organizations are obligated to uphold. The Business Case for CSR The business case means the underlying rationales or arguments documenting or supporting why the business community needs to advance and accept the CSR ‘cause’ (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). It is concerned with the main question: What do the business organizations and community get out of CSR? Put differently, how do they tangibly benefit from taking part in CSR practices, activities and policies? Business case denotes the bottom-line financial, as well as additional reasons for businesses questing for CSR policies and strategies (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). For instance, majority are small companies in India that deal with specific local matters. And although the social sector within India is known for its big heart, as well as its solid loyalty to social justice, it is to the same degree well known for lacking efficiency, accountability, transparency and professionalism (Narain, 2015). Corporate Social Responsibility can add fresh life into such condition, as well as unlocking the sector’s value (Werhane, 1989). Therefore, in formulating this business case, it is essential to learn about some of its historical perspective and background (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Additionally, a concise discussion of developing the understandings of CSR, as well as some of the traditional, and long-established arguments that have been created both for and against the thought of business taking on any obligation to the society, beyond maximizing its financial wellbeing, as well as in profit-seeking. An incentive for the business case development was perhaps a reply to Milton Friedman’s un-ever ending arguments against the concept, asserting that businesses need to focus mainly on long-term profits. Nevertheless, even as this perspective took root in the society, strong counterarguments were coming forth, in the form of such concepts, such as stakeholder theory and corporate ethics. Along with the development of socioeconomic policy within the second half of the 20th century, the case for CSR, including environmental responsibility, started to gather force throughout the world (Bloom, 2010). The case against the CSR concept started with the highly developed economic argument stated by the late Friedman in 1962 (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). According to Carroll & Shabana (2010), the management has a responsibility of maximizing profits. He argued that entrepreneurs are not always concerned with social matters. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the free market operation to solve the existing problems by ensuring that businesses undertake social responsibilities (Prihatiningtias, 2012). Such business ethics, for instance, has been a challenge to BP (British Petroleum) plc. Because of the oil spill at Alaskan, refinery fire at Texas City and explosion within the Gulf of Mexico (Warren, 2012). However, because of these unethical actions, the company aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions by ten percent, between 1990 and 2010. They did it successfully, which indicated their determination either to assist the environment within their business practices or to foster the growth of a ‘greener’ image, in order to make sure that the environmentally aware public will prefer their products. Additionally, the practice helped to capture the rising market for an optional energy (Velentzas & Broni, 2010). Using Friedman’s concept it can be argued that BP utilized this image to maximize profits, as well as uphold the law. A second CSR objection is that businesses do always fail to deal with social activities (Umezu, N.D). Managers are always concerned with business operations and finance (Ferrell, 2012). Therefore, they do not have the necessary social skills (expertise) to carry out socially oriented decisions (Lawler & Conger, 2015). However, Egri et.al (2013) argues that companies do not carry out various Corporate Responsibility practices separately, though firms prioritize different CR practices and issues in order to maximize the efficiency of their stakeholder management programs. The arguments in favor of Corporate Social Responsibility start with the belief that it is the long-term self-interest of the business to be responsible socially (Friedman, N.D). Therefore, in case a business is to possess a healthy climate, it should immediately take actions that will guarantee its long-term viability. In addition, Corporate Social Responsibility safeguards the organization against harsh government regulation (Maimunah, 2009). It is believed that future intervention of the government can be prevented, such that firms uses self-disciplined standards to police itself, as well as fulfilling society’s expectations. However, McWilliams et.al (2005) argues that the job of the government is not business related. Similarly, the job of the business does not entail that of the government. Lastly, it has been argued that the business needs to take part in CSR since the public supports it strongly (Graham, 2013). Nowadays, the public thinks that, besides the quests for profits (Friedman, N.D), organizations must be held accountable for their workers, as well as stakeholders, even if making things better for them needs companies to sacrifice certain profits (Liket & Simaens, 2013). The Kew Gardens Principle This principle is a combination of salient features that govern difficult cases (Simon et.al., 1972). The salient features include critical need, the thirty-eight spectators’ proximity and the capacity of the spectators to act in a helpful manner, such as calling the police. According to Simon et.al (1972), the principle, no matter how closely one may think of social responsibility, possesses some scenarios in which a collection of circumstances gives the public the responsibility to respond. Such a scenario is clearly seen at Foxconn, a Taiwanese high-tech firm, where a range of tragedies was reported due to lack of good industrial relationship with local employees (Zhu, 2009). In addition, discrimination of mainland Chinese employees by Taiwanese superiors, as well as excessively long working hours resulted in 13 suicides (Torres et.al, 2012). Therefore, lack of efficient CSR practices at Foxconn failed to protect its employees from harm according to the Kew Gardens Principle. Life is filled with emergencies in which lack of response is a special kind of violation of the negative formal command against giving rise to social injury (Simon et.al., 1972). Therefore, legal responsibility for helping an individual in cases of grave injury and distress, even when brought about by another is recognized by most criminal laws and civil codes. According to Simon et.al (1972), an individual who is aware that another person is exposed to great physical danger will offer reasonable help to the exposed individual, unless others are offering that care or aid. This statute discerns that it is not sensible in each case for an individual to assist an endangered person (Schmidt, 2015). In case such assistance endangers him or becomes an obstacle to obligations rested on others, or if there are others offering the aid, the individual is excluded from the duty. These conditions of responsibility offer some shape to hard cases. For instance, in cases where the rest of the features are constant, increased need raises responsibility (Simon et.al., 1972). However, proximity to a needy situation is not inevitably spatial. Proximity is mainly a function of notice. Therefore, a person is held blame worthy if he is aware of the danger and does not exercise what he can fairly do to remedy the condition. For instance, the thirty-eight at Kew Gardens were guilty not because they were close but since closeness enabled them to realize that, an individual was in need. Therefore, when a person becomes aware of a social injury or wrong doing, he/she takes over the entire responsibilities (Schmidt, 2015). Capability, on the other hand, is an additional salient feature that is significant (Simon et.al., 1972). Even though there is a need for individuals with proximity, such individuals are not always held accountable, unless there is something they are expected to perform. For instance, the incidence at the Kew Gardens might not have been sensible to expect an individual put his body between the knife and the girl (Simon et.al., 1972). It was certainly reasonable to expect an individual to call the police. Contribution to the Society It is undeniable that Corporate Social Responsibility has the affirmative duty to assist the society in many ways. According to Maimunah (2009), CSR is considered the third most essential driver for overall employee engagement in a society. For instance, in the U.S. an organization’s stature within the society is the second most crucial driver of employee participation. Therefore, the affirmative duty of CSR in society development entails any indirect and direct gains received by the community as outcomes of corporations’ social commitment to the entire community system (Maimunah, 2009). The common duty of CSR in society development includes creating closer ties between the community and corporations (Graham, 2013). Through CSR, the corporations’ existence within the social system is extremely felt beyond the perception that business is just a place to obtain employment, as well as production of services and goods. Thus, it brings about peace between the community and corporations. CSR also plays the role of transferring technology within the society (Maimunah, 2009). Closer ties assist in transfer of technology between multinational corporations that give concerns on CSR, as well as communities within the host countries. Through transfer of technology combined with CSR processes, the community in target would benefit in different aspects of marketing and product development, such as better quality and price, as well as the wellbeing of the people (Maimunah, 2009). Talent acquisition is another duty performed by CSR to aid in society development (Maimunah, 2009). Businesses with good CSR reputation can make use of their status, as well as make their appeal stronger by making their commitment a component of their proposition value for prospective candidates. CSR also assists in protecting the environment (Maimunah, 2009). Some of the world’s biggest firms have made extremely visible CSR commitment. For instance, the initiatives intended to cut down the firms’ environmental footprint. These firms take the perspective that environmental and financial performance can work jointly to drive social reputation and company development (Maimunah, 2009). Conclusion Business case arguments assert that companies, which take part in CSR activities shall be rewarded by the market within financial and economic terms. The business case narrow view concentrates on immediate cost savings while the wide view justifies Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives when they yield indirect and direct links to business performance. The advantage of the wide over the narrow perspective is that it permits the business to gain from CSR opportunities. Additionally, it enhances its competitive advantage. The Kew Gardens Principle, on the other hand, entails a combination of salient features that govern difficult cases that prevent harm to people and the planet. The salient features offer a simple but strong framework for analyzing those grey conditions where people need to determine their responsibilities to avoid harm. Businesses also need to contribute to the society by creating closer ties, offering talent acquisition and transferring technology. References Bloom, L 2010, "The Ethics of Conflict of Interest," The ASPPA Journal ,Vol. 40. No. 2, pp.1-3. Carroll, A & Shabana, K, 2010, The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice, International Journal of Management Reviews (2010), pp. 85-105 Cheers, Z, 2011, The Corporate Social Responsibility Debate, Viewed at http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=honors Egri, C, Lo, C, Ni, N & Lin, C, 2013, Patterns of Corporate Responsibility Practices for High Financial Performance: Evidence from Three Chinese Societies, J Bus Ethics, Vol. 126 pp. 169-183. Friedman, M N.D., The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, pp. 84-90. Ferrell, O & Ferrell, J 2012b, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases, Cengage Learning, New York Graham, J 2013, The Role of Corporate Culture in Business Ethics, viewed 25 Jan 2014, http://www.cutn.sk/Library/proceedings/mch_2013/editovane_prispevky/44.%20Graham.pdf Hernández-Murillo, R & Martinek, C, 2009, Corporate Social Responsibility Can Be Profitable, Viewed at https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional/09/04/socialresponsibility.pdf on 20th March 2015. Ip, k, 2009, The Challenge of Developing a Business Ethics in China, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 pp.211-224. Kerns, C 2003, Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture," Graziadio Business Review, Vol. 6 Iss. 3, viewed 24 Jan 2014, http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/creating-and-sustaining-an-ethical-workplace-culture/ Kuraitis, V. & Waterman, D. nd, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, viewed 7 Dec 2013, http://www.lee.net/governance/code.pdf Lawler, E & Conger, J, 2015, The sustainable effectiveness model: Moving corporations beyond the philanthropy paradigm, Viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.003 on 20th March 2015. Liket, K & Simaens, A, 2013, Battling the Devolution in the Research on Corporate Philanthropy, J Bus Ethics, pp. 285-308. Llopis, J, Gonzalez, R & Gasco, J 2003, Corporate Governance and Organizational Culture. The Role Of Ethics Officers, viewed 24 Jan 2014, http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/9171/3/corporate_Governance_and_organi.._Ethic_officer.pdf Maimunah, S, 2009, Corporate Social Responsibility And Its Role In Community Development: An International Perspective, The Journal of International Social Research, Vol. 2 pp. 199-209. McWilliams, A, Siegel, D & Wright, P, 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications, pp. 1-31, Viewed at http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0506.pdf on 20th March 2015. Narain, R, 2015, Dear Indian corporate: here is why you need to take social responsibility seriously, Viewed at http://qz.com/321040/dear-indian-corporate-here-is-why-you-need-to-take-social-responsibility-seriously/ on 20th March 2015. Prihatiningtias, Y, 2012, Corporate Social Responsibility And Managing Ethical Cultures, Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma, Vol. 3 pp. 150-155. Simon, J, Powers, C, & Gunnemann, J, 1972, The Responsibilities of Corporations and Their Owners, The Ethical Investor: Universities and Corporate Responsibility, pp. 61-63. Schmidt, D, 2015, Ethics Can Be Taught, Viewed at http://www.inc.com/leadership-blog/2008/06/ethics_can_be_taught_1.html on 20th March 2015. Torres, C, Garcia-French, M, Hordijk, R & Lana Olup, K, 2012, Four Case Studies on Corporate Social Responsibility:Do Conflicts Affect a Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Policy?, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 51-73. Umezu, M, N.D., Historical and Theoretical Framework for CSR in the Global Era, Viewed at http://www.nikkei.co.jp/gsr/2009/global/whitepaper/pdf/part1_chapter3.pdf on 20th March 2015. Velentzas, J & Broni, G, 2010, Ethical Dimensions In The Conduct Of Business: Business Ethics, Corporatesocial Responsibility And The Law. The "Ethics In Business" As A Sense Of Business Ethics, International Conference On Applied Economics, pp. 795-819, Viewed at http://kastoria.teikoz.gr/icoae2/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/articles/2011/10/092.pdf Werhane, P 1989, "The ethics of insider trading," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8, Issue 11, pp 841-845. Warren, S, 2012, Is BP an ethical company?, Business Development Strategies, Viewed at http://wearedevelopment.net/2012/05/18/is-bp-an-ethical-company/ Zhu, P, 2009, Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia Business Solutions for Global Challenges, Viewed at http://www.csr-asia.com/weekly_news_detail.php?id=11775 Read More