The Three Viewpoints of Corporate Responsibility - Case Study Example

Name Student Id Lecturer’s Name Date Introduction The paper demonstrates how the three viewpoints of corporate responsibility are put in place so as to relate with business ethics. There is also an elaboration of how the three viewpoints are interpreted by different corporations and government that results in different meanings. The paper also explains the classical viewpoint as it was explained by the classical economist Milton Friedman in his explanation on monopoly and corporate responsibility. There is also the explanation of social-economic views as presented in Kew Gardens Principles. The paper also explains the social view that requires the corporations to give back to the society (Horrigan, 2010). The paper also aims at explaining the role the corporations should play in the society as presented in different literatures. The paper also explains corporate responsibility of different companies and how they can work to help the surrounding society. The company’s information on corporate responsibility will be from their website so as to know the part they play with the societies around. The paper also explains the ethical obligations as related to the pharmaceutical companies (Kotler & Lee, 2005). The paper also explains the meaning of social responsibility. It also explains the ways to solve social responsibility of the corporate world. Economic view The three viewpoints of corporate responsibility as they imply in the ethical obligation can be explained as follows. The classical point of view as it was exemplified by Milton Friedman. The classical economist in his writings stated that social responsibility was unjust and it should be avoided as much as possible for better operations of the business. Friedman explained that social responsibility of the companies will deal a heavy blow to capitalism because it will reduce their profits (Prahalad & Porter, 2003). According to Friedman the move of social responsibility will lead to totalitarianism (Hartman & Jardins, 2011). According to this classical view as exemplified by Friedman in his doctrine of business of business is business says that the role of corporations should be to increase the value of shareholders value. He discourages the corporations to take care of other stakeholders other than the shareholders. In his doctrine he argues that such action could only be taken when it is aimed at benefitting the shareholders of a business (Velasquez, 2012). According to this view taking care of social responsibility such as social and environmental issues that do not increase shareholders value should not be undertaken (French, 1995). He called taking care of social activities subversive doctrine because it will interfere with the foundation of free society which will interfere with business operations. To Friedman corporations should aim at increasing profit so as to benefit their shareholders (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009). A company taking care of social responsibility will not be competitive in the business because they will reduce their profits and, therefore, they will not increase the value of shareholders wealth. The reason behind this is that the corporations will not be able to reinvest because of increased cost on the social responsibility. The classical theory of Friedman states that a corporation should increase the shares of those who have invested in the business directly. The value might increase to benefit the investors in the long term (Crane, Matten & Spence, 2008). According to classical theory of business ethics social responsibility such as environment are not necessary to any corporation because they do not increase the corporation profits, therefore, it does not increase the value of the shareholders. Therefore, the business should only aim at benefiting the business shareholders but not other stakeholders such as the customers (Carey, 2013). The classical theory of Friedman says that the corporations will do the right thing that will not harm the society. The companies will produce the safe commodities because unsafe will make them lose customers. This means that this will make the corporations responsible because they want to increase their profits. Friedman stated that those in business are not immoral and cannot make ethical decisions (Blowfield, & Murray, 2008). To him realization of long term shareholders interest will result to benefits to the surrounding the community. Friedman calls for unregulated capitalism because he supports free trade where the sole responsibility of the business is to make profits and increase shareholders value. The theory calls for a corporation to acts towards realizing long term interest of the share holders (Boatright, 2012). Social-economic View Point Another corporate responsibility viewpoint is social-economic aspect that calls for one to prevent harm to others. This part explains the Kew Garden Principles and other related issues to ethical obligations of corporations. The Kew Garden Principles are need, which states that one is obligated to offering a person who requires help from the people around. In the Kew Garden case Genovese was in need during the slaying and, therefore, who were witnessing would have offered the required help and would have saved the victim. In relation to the ethic obligation of pharmaceutical companies people are in need of medication and, therefore, the companies’ works to produce drugs to provide the medication the people requires (Boss, 2011). The companies have a social responsibility to produce to the needs of the society. Another Kew Gardens Principle is proximity, this principle states that those geographically close to a deed have a social responsibility of preventing harm. In the Kew Gardens case there were thirty eight witnesses who heard and saw Genovese being stabbed. This principle requires one who is near where an act is being carried out to take a reasonable action to stop the remedies of an action. This means that the thirty eight were blameworthy because they saw someone who was in need and did not take any action (Bowie, 1999). The pharmaceutical companies have a social obligation to produce drugs because they will eliminate diseases which would result from lack of medication. The companies should work to produce drugs to help the general society to keep away from diseases and other infections. The companies should be aware that lack of drugs will result to death and increased diseases (Burchell, 2008). The obligation of the pharmaceutical companies is the social expectation of the general public. The other principle is capability and it states that if people has proximity to a place where an action took place is capable of stopping an occurrence has an obligation to act so as to stop any problems. The pharmaceutical companies have an obligation to ensure the diseases and any effects that could be avoided by the company products and their services. This state that a company should not sacrifice its shareholders interest so as provide for other stakeholders. In the Kew Gardens case no one could allow himself to be stabbed in place of the girl. The pharmaceutical companies therefore, cannot forego their shareholders interest and their profits in their research to producing quality products. The companies should produce what they can while maximizing their interest. Therefore, according to the classical theory it will be unreasonable to make the pharmaceutical companies to forego their profits. According to this view affirmative duty is the action the corporate take so as compensate for the harm caused to others. The affirmative duty states that corporations should compensate for the injury caused to others. This calls for the corporation to be involved in public matters such as management of the society (Carroll, 2003). This social responsibility will help the companies increase their profits. In this case the thirty eight people would have acted in a way that would have stopped the girl from being stabbed. This would have acted as an affirmative duty because they would have avoided harm. Moral minimum states that one should not minimize the conception of social responsibility because negative injunction cannot be exclude in the whole scenario. This states that corporation interest of corporations may override those of other stakeholders. The last principle of Kew Gardens is the principle of last resort. The principle states that when in case of emergency one takes the necessary action instead of doing what is right. In this principle when one is more responsible it is hard for other to give help in case of distress. The principle of last resort states that when one is in a situation the people around might wait for others to act and this might lead to no one acting which will worsen the situation. This led to no one acting in Kew Gardens case because no one wanted to act because they waited for each other to act. Social view  According to this view the corporations should contribute to the growth of the society. The view calls for a situation where the action taken is of benefit to the majority stakeholders or people, as being right (Weiss, 2009). The consequences of an action taken should be more positive, and bring good to the people affected by the action, for it to be right. Moral position requires corporations carrying out business to cater for the needs of the general society, therefore, this requires the party involved to shelve shareholders interests of profit making for the sake of the majority and the whole community. This calls for the involvement of the corporations to work towards maximizing the utility of the other stakeholders by giving back part of their profits in terms of social responsibility. The theory calls for those in a situation to work towards the best interest of other stakeholders so as to avoid harm. Therefore, the corporations should provide for the society in the ways they such as taking care of the environment and taking other activities that will develop the society (Wicks, Freeman, Werhane & Martin, 2010). Corporate social responsibility of Johnson & Johnson The company’s corporate social responsibility works towards the well being of the community by partnering with other companies in the health care sector so as to improve the health and lives of people. The company has produced a lot of products and services by research and starting programs that are community oriented. The company work in these areas where it promotes its social responsibility. These areas include women’s and children’s health the company has produced a range of products that improve the health of women as well inventing programs that help women live health lives. The company also produces products that enhance children’s growth as well as boosting their immunity. The company also offers advice on how parents can help their children to improve their health by living a healthy way. Another area the company works with external stakeholders is global health coordination where the company works with other international companies to produce the best services and product that will improve global health to the majority in the world. The company also produces products that help prevent diseases and infections that would harm people. The company also provides health care education to people through their services and their websites and this helps the other stakeholders to improve on their health. The company also has a drug treatment development that is aimed at providing treatment and medical advice to customers who seek their services. The company also aims at enhancing health care systems so as to improve the health of other stakeholders. The social responsibility of corporation is giving back to the community part of their profits as a way of appreciating the general public. It can also be said to be a way of making up for the harm the corporation causes to the public in general, this include environmental pollution such as air and water pollution. Conclusion The three viewpoints of corporate responsibility have been properly explained according to different views by different literature. This explains the reason behind the companies give part of their profits to take care the surrounding communities. In the Kew Gardens case there are principle that act as guidelines for the society to achieve the best corporate responsibility. The corporate social responsibility is where the corporation takes care of the surroundings such as the environment by sharing part of their profits. These are the activities that the companies feel that would benefit the other stakeholders other than the shareholders. The Kew Garden principle explains how the community can be a better place where the people do what is supposed to be done rather waiting for others to act. The views of Milton Friedman stated that there should be no corporate responsibility because it will reduce the companies profits. References Blowfield, M., & Murray A. 2008. Corporate Responsibility A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UK. Boatright, R. 2012. Ethics and the conduct of business (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey. Boss, J. 2011. Ethics for Life A Text with Readings. Mc Graw Hill: New York. Bowie, N. 1999. Business Ethics A Kantian Perspective. Blackwell Publishers: Malden, MA. Burchell, J. (Ed). 2008. The Corporate Social Responsibility Reader. Routledge: London. Carey, L. 2013. Business Ethics Managing Values and Corporate Responsibility. Pearson: Frenchs Forrest, Sydney. Carroll, A. 2003. Business & society ethics and stakeholder management (5th ed.). South- Western Publishing Co: Cincinnati Ohio. Crane, A., Matten, D. & Spence, L. (Eds). 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility. Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge: London. French, P. 1995. Corporate ethics. Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, Texas. Hartman, L. & Des Jardins, J. 2011. Business Ethics Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility (2nd ed.). Mc Graw Hill Irwin: New York. Horrigan, B. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Wiley & Sons Ltd: New York.x Prahalad, C. & Porter, M. 2003. Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Shaw, W., Barry, V. & Sansbury, G. 2009. Moral Issues in business First Asia-Pacific Edition. Cengage Learning: South Melbourne, Aust. Velasquez, M. 2012. Business ethics concepts and cases (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Weiss, J. 2009. Business Ethics A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach (5th. ed.). Thomson South-Western: Canada. Wicks, A., Freeman, R., Werhane, P. & Martin, K. 2010. Business Ethics A Managerial Approach. Prentice Hall: Boston, MA. Read More

The value might increase to benefit the investors in the long term (Crane, Matten & Spence, 2008). According to classical theory of business ethics social responsibility such as environment are not necessary to any corporation because they do not increase the corporation profits, therefore, it does not increase the value of the shareholders. Therefore, the business should only aim at benefiting the business shareholders but not other stakeholders such as the customers (Carey, 2013). The classical theory of Friedman says that the corporations will do the right thing that will not harm the society.

The companies will produce the safe commodities because unsafe will make them lose customers. This means that this will make the corporations responsible because they want to increase their profits. Friedman stated that those in business are not immoral and cannot make ethical decisions (Blowfield, & Murray, 2008). To him realization of long term shareholders interest will result to benefits to the surrounding the community. Friedman calls for unregulated capitalism because he supports free trade where the sole responsibility of the business is to make profits and increase shareholders value.

The theory calls for a corporation to acts towards realizing long term interest of the share holders (Boatright, 2012). Social-economic View Point Another corporate responsibility viewpoint is social-economic aspect that calls for one to prevent harm to others. This part explains the Kew Garden Principles and other related issues to ethical obligations of corporations. The Kew Garden Principles are need, which states that one is obligated to offering a person who requires help from the people around.

In the Kew Garden case Genovese was in need during the slaying and, therefore, who were witnessing would have offered the required help and would have saved the victim. In relation to the ethic obligation of pharmaceutical companies people are in need of medication and, therefore, the companies’ works to produce drugs to provide the medication the people requires (Boss, 2011). The companies have a social responsibility to produce to the needs of the society. Another Kew Gardens Principle is proximity, this principle states that those geographically close to a deed have a social responsibility of preventing harm.

In the Kew Gardens case there were thirty eight witnesses who heard and saw Genovese being stabbed. This principle requires one who is near where an act is being carried out to take a reasonable action to stop the remedies of an action. This means that the thirty eight were blameworthy because they saw someone who was in need and did not take any action (Bowie, 1999). The pharmaceutical companies have a social obligation to produce drugs because they will eliminate diseases which would result from lack of medication.

The companies should work to produce drugs to help the general society to keep away from diseases and other infections. The companies should be aware that lack of drugs will result to death and increased diseases (Burchell, 2008). The obligation of the pharmaceutical companies is the social expectation of the general public. The other principle is capability and it states that if people has proximity to a place where an action took place is capable of stopping an occurrence has an obligation to act so as to stop any problems.

The pharmaceutical companies have an obligation to ensure the diseases and any effects that could be avoided by the company products and their services. This state that a company should not sacrifice its shareholders interest so as provide for other stakeholders. In the Kew Gardens case no one could allow himself to be stabbed in place of the girl. The pharmaceutical companies therefore, cannot forego their shareholders interest and their profits in their research to producing quality products.

The companies should produce what they can while maximizing their interest. Therefore, according to the classical theory it will be unreasonable to make the pharmaceutical companies to forego their profits.

Read More