The paper "Instrumental, Political, Integrative and Ethical Theories" is a great example of management coursework. Corporate social responsibility is the contribution and impact that a business has to the social and environmental factors. A business or an enterprise should try to improve the welfare of society and the community at large (Garriga & Mele 2004, p. 53). This paper tries to elaborate if implementing corporate social responsibility in a business can balance the needs of all stakeholders. Stakeholders of a company can vary from investors, shareholders, buyers, sellers and brokers. The interest of the stakeholders varies from one group to the other.
There are certain theories that elaborate the dimensions of corporate social responsibility. These theories are classified into; Instrumental theory, political theory, integrative theory and ethical theory. Discussion Organizations have a different reason to conduct business. In this case, stakeholders of the different company will have different interest with the company (Berman, Kotha & Jones 1999, p. 492). This interest can be illustrated from a theoretical perspective as will be elaborated. Instrumental theory This theory suggests that the main objective of the corporate is to make a profit.
It is mainly focused on wealth creation and use social responsibility as a tool to create wealth (Barney 1999, p. 102). With the view of increasing profit, it has to consider every responsibility. Certain responsibility that would lead to losses is rejected. Those that would result to increase of equity are considered if they do not involve any fraud or corruption. The stakeholders are the main people who dictate the kind of responsibility they are going to cater to. They thus have to consider their interest in social responsibility and see if it is beneficial to them (Berman, Kotha & Jones 1999). From this theory, stakeholders take up measures that are going to increase the wealth and capital of a business.
They invest in social activity as a way to make money. In this case, the corporate or the firm will earn money out of the activity (Burke & Logsdon 1996, p. 497). They, therefore, have a competitive advantage over other firms who are involved in the business. The company considers its advantages in the involvement, and thus invests its resources to win the market in order to earn immensely (Berman, Kotha & Jones 1999). In other cases, the world population consisting of the poor people, most of the firms innovate ways to make the poor people as not a problem but as consumers of their products (Garriga & Mele 2004, p. 54).
In this case, they get the means to earn income by trying to help them through providing goods. They may seem to be helping them, but in the real sense, they are benefiting from the income of sales of their products.
This is referred to as disruptive innovation (Berman, Kotha & Jones 1999). Some stakeholders use social responsibility as cause-related marketing. They consider that through supporting various social responsibilities, their products will be viewed as of high quality. Others consider by supporting activities like campaigns exhibitions and concerts, they can market products. In this case, they lead to a win-win situation to both the organization and the community (Garriga & Mele 2004, p. 56). The organization attains a competitive advantage over other competing firms and still help the community. In this case, the corporate social responsibility helps to meet the community expectation, and still gain an advantage over others.
Balmer J, Fukukawa K & Gray E, 2007, The Nature and Management of Ethical Corporate Identity: A Commentary on Corporate Identity, Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.76, no.1, 7-15.
Barney J, 1999, 'Film Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage", Journal of Management, vol. 17, pp 99-120.
Berman SL, Kotha W & Jones T, 1999, 'Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and the Firm Financial Performance", Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no.5, pp 488-509.
Burke L, & Logsdon J, 1996, 'How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off', Long Range Planning vol.29 no.4, pp 495-503.
Carroll A, 1994, 'Social Issues in Management Research', Business and Society, vol.33, no. 1, pp 5-25.
Carroll A, 1999, 'Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of Definitional Construct', Business and Society, vol. 38, no.3, pp 268-295.
Garriga E, & Mele D, 2004, Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping and territory. Journal of business ethics, vol.53, no.7, pp 51-71.
Kolk A, & Tuldor R, 2010, ‘International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development,’ International Business Review, vol.19, no.2, pp 119-125.
McWilliams A, & Siegel D, 2001, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Finn Perspective', Academy of Management Review, vol. 6, no.1, pp 117-127.
Moon J, 2007 ‘The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development,’ Sustainable Development, vol. 15, no.5, pp 296-306.
Payne A, 2006, ‘Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development,’ Journal of Public Affairs, vol.6, no.3, pp 386-397.
Porter M, & Kramer M, 2002, 'The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy', Harvard Business Review, vol. 80, no.12, pp 56-69.
Stead J, & Stead, E, 2000, 'Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 24, no.4, pp 313-330.
Valor C, 2005, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability,’ Business and Society Review, vol. 110, no.2, pp191-212.
Yatnaji K, 1997, 'A Global Perspective of Ethics in Business", Ethics Quarterly, vol. 7 no.3 pp 55-71.