The paper "Views of Corporate Social Responsibility " is a perfect example of management coursework. Corporate social responsibility has emerged as an imperative aspect of the contemporary business environment. Its incorporation has seen the development and conformance to the societal needs of various constructs. Arguably, it has enabled organizations to adhere to ethical and moral conducts throughout the business. Simply put, the 21st-century business environment necessitates conformance to CSR approaches given its realized benefits. While the concept of CSR presents to the general belief of the modern organization to the extent of its responsibility, two important views are considered: classic and socioeconomic.
Whereas these views hold different perspectives, this paper confronts, they contribute to the significance of CSR. Definition of CSR Historically and up to date, the concept CSR face debates concerning its definition either academically, in businesses or society. CSR determines how institutions manage challenges concerning financial crisis, global warming and human rights enforcement (Dahlsrud, 2012). The European Union Commission defines CSR as the responsibilities of businesses enterprise and their impacts on society (EU COM, 2012). The CSR has transformed from a voluntary private entity into an integral part of corporate business citizenship.
With the EU definition, it is understood that business organizations integrate social and environmental concerns through interactions for the purpose of collective bargains with companies either voluntarily or corporate citizenship. In my opinion, CRS can be defined as an efficient business through production and distribution of wealth/assets with the beneficiaries being managers and stakeholders. It requires ethical systems that are effectively implemented, integrated and practising a suitable management system. Currently, 46% of executives still believe there is enough room for improvements concerning CRS definitions (Masaka 2012). VIEWS OF CORPORATES SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY The classical view The classical view of CRS entails institutions and responsibilities.
Society has various institutions with which each institution have locative functions. Efforts are attributed for economic purposes rather than social interests. The people within a society have responsibilities and not the business hence the business is not expected to reflect the characters of human beings. With responsibilities, the businessmen and CEO are in focus. The corporate employs the individuals expecting them to make enough money as possible. Managers are expected to secure enough profits and excess collection of revenues through the executive is expected to act on their own will outside the business area since they will be using their own money & time.
The axioms behind profitability, managers make choices that yield more profit than those yielding less (Jamali et al 2012). The classical views of CSR focus in providing goods and services which through maximization of profit within the legal framework is enhanced. If the executive behaves in a social responsibility way, it is not the interest of employer because manager acts as a principal and not agent.
Classical view advocates that executives make a decision on spending resources for social purposes as being the duty of civil servants. If the executives perfume the duties of a civil servant, then companies will allocate the availability of limited resources based on political mechanism and not a market mechanism. If CSR is taken seriously in society, it widens its scope to political intervention focusing on all activities of individuals in society hence undermining the political principle of the market mechanism that is unanimity.
In my opinion, if organizations express the classical ideologies of corporate social responsibility, the constructive structures of the free-market system will be hindered by a control system in central Government which will determine prices and wages from commodities and services rendered. The classical views stakeholders as a very important entity to CSR. The stakeholders bring money into the organization and employ managers to maximize their profit (Bitcha 2012). The managers work hard to pursue the interests of stakeholders through a technique known as managerial capitalism.
The shortcomings of working in the interest of stakeholders, as per the stakeholder’ s theory, the stakeholders provide the managers with flexibility chances of opportunities within the working organization to invest in their favourite project which in long run will destroy the firm company values without proper needs for justification. To achieve an even distribution of resources, the state apparatus manages the interests of social need in a caring way while managers should come up with structures that are valuated to the interests of shareholders. The classical practise of CSR put companies to a limited situation whereby it’ s only the profit-making agenda that makes the company run.
The agenda contributes to the failing of big companies having a motive of making money only. A good example is Wal-Mart Company which had interests in maximizing profit-making through child slave labour, breaking of environmental law and exploiting the weak formed labour law, the thwarts union (Hancock 2012). Using enough funds from its profitability the company, the company managed to curb protesters from protesting on humanitarians services within the institution.
Constantina Bichta. (2012) Corporate social responsibility, a role in government policy and regulation. Centre for the study of regulated industry.
Dahlsrud, A. (2012) How Corporate Social Responsibility Is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Dima Jamali and Ming Chien. (2012) Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility Attitudes: The Demography of Socially Responsible Investors. British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 305–323 (2012
European Union Commission. (2012) Corporate Social Responsibility: A New Definition, a New Agenda for Action. MEMO/11/730. Brussels, 25, October, 2012.
Hancock, J. (2012) Introduction: why this subject? Why this book? In J. Hancock, ed., investing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide to Best Practice, Business Planning and the UK’s Leading Companies, pp. 1–4. London: Kogan Page.
Masaka, D. (20112) Why enforcing corporate social responsibility (CSR) is morally questionable”, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 13-21.
O’Fallon, M. J. and Buttered, K. (2012) A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2006–20011, Journal of Business Ethics, 59, pp. 375–413.
World Vision Australia. ( 2012) Journal of Asia Tsunami Disaster , World Vision Response.