The paper "Ways in Which Organisations Are Able to Meet CSR Obligations " is a good example of business coursework. The increasing significance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has compelled corporate executives and investors to implement CSR initiatives. The modern-day customer has also exhibited a preference to purchase products from firms that exhibit corporate social responsibility. Some of the CSR initiatives include being ethical, environmentally responsible, and sustainable. However, the singular objective of the traditional organisation is to make profits. Consequently, engaging in philanthropic activities elicits the question of whether the directive is would reduce the profitability of the firm by increasing its expenses or the organisation would witness an increase in its customers that would increase its profitability.
The proud proclamation of CEOs is the fact that CRS initiatives present a “ golden ticket” for the future growth of the organisation (Tran 2015). The objective of the essay is to discuss the ways in which organisations are able to meet CSR obligations while balancing the need to maintain profitability and meet stakeholder expectations. Ethical Responsibilities The ethical responsibilities of an organisation comprised of those standards, values, norms, and expectations that mirror a concern for what shareholders, employees, consumers, and the community perceive as being just, fair, as well as protecting and keeping the moral rights of stakeholders.
In order to practice ethical responsibility in the organisation, the firm should engage in voluntary actions that pursue and promote social goals beyond performing their legal responsibilities (Carroll & Shabana 2010). The goals are important to different sections of society or the entire society in general. However, promotion and pursuit of such goals exceed the immediate financial interests of the corporation.
The existence of interest to measure the goals in relation to the performance of the organisation regarding the goals has acted as an incentive to implement the goals in organisations. In the quest to measure corporate performance in relation to its ability to meet social goals, the Kinder, Lydenburg, Domini social performance index also referred to as the KLD is the most common measure. The KLD index spans several aspects of corporate performance by measuring environmental, governance, and social issues. The index also measures controversial business issues.
Some of the environmental issues measured by the index include products and services, operations, and management, and climate change. The social issues measured by the index include the community, employee relations, diversity, governance issues such as structure and reporting, products, human rights, and controversial business issues such as adult entertainment, abortion, firearms, contraceptives, alcohol, tobacco, nuclear power, military, and gambling (Carroll & Shabana 2010). Alternatively, organisations also follow the directives of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the quest to become ethically responsible. Besides focusing on environmental and economic indicators, as it is the case with the KLD index, the GRI identifies four types of indicators of social performance.
The categories include labour practices and decent work, product responsibility, society, and human rights (Carroll & Shabana 2010). Therefore, an organisation that intends to be ethically responsible endeavours to score highly on the KLD index as well as the GRI sustainability reporting. Adhering to the guidelines provided by both measures indicates the presence of stakeholder and societal concerns on the performance of the corporation in relation to the social goals.
The increasing stakeholder and social concerns have also compelled organisations to implement appropriate responses aimed at being ethically responsible. The adoption of the “ green” philosophy in product development and operations is one of the initiatives employed by firms to be environmentally responsible. The objective of implementing the “ green” philosophy is to reduce the adverse impact of the operations of the organisation on the natural environment.
Bruch, F.W.H., 2005. The keys to rethinking corporate philanthropy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), p.49.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), pp.85-105.
Comincioli, N., Poddi, L. and Vergalli, S., 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firms’ Performance: A Stratigraphical Analysis.
Tran, T., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility and Profits: A Tradeoff or a Balance?.