Essays on Various Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Various Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility" is an outstanding example of business coursework.   Since the 1950s, issues revolving around Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have raised serious debates. In effect, the definition associated with CSR has been changing in practice as well as meaning. According to Lee (2008) and Secchi (2007), the classical perspective of corporate social responsibility was narrowly limited to philanthropy. However, Lee (2008) posits that later in the 1970s, the classical view started defining CSR based on business-society relations. Accordingly, the classical view indicated how social corporate responsibility brought benefits to both businesses as well as the society as social problems were solved thus organizations earned a good reputation. However, opponents of CSR argue that community developments are supposed to be supported by the governments as businesses and citizens pay tax expecting services as well as development.

But this paper argues that businesses interact with the community as well as use the environment to achieve their profit-making objective. Consequently, they have the sole responsibility of making sure that the environment is well preserved. Moreover, without the community, the corporation has no business thus it must involve itself in developmental initiatives that can benefit the community.

In effect, this paper aims to analyze critically different perspectives related to CSR. The paper will also give findings of the social or ethical obligations of organizations with regard to corporate social responsibilities. To achieve, the paper will look at various concepts related to CSR as well as business-case arguments of CSR. Ethical theories related to CRS CSR is widely defined as the beneficial, ethical as well as society friendly undertakings that businesses engage in, besides their normal operations, in order to uplift the lives of the community in terms of development.

The utilitarian theories view corporate social responsibility as a means to benefit the business economically (Secchi, 2007). According to these theories, firms realized that there was a need for an economics of responsibility as businesses were typically known for profit maximization. As such, firms had to look for ways that could generate more profits constantly in the burgeoning competitive environment (Friedman, 2007). Firms had to come up with strategies that would sell the company as a caring and socially conscious entity thus establishing the CRS initiatives (Secchi, 2007).

Accordingly, business came up with business ethics that aimed at making sure that the corporation was ethical to the surrounding communities. The classical perspective associated with the concept of laissez-faire business gives way to public control, determinism, personal responsibility to CSR and individualism. According to Mele and Garriga (2004), corporations or firms are often considered as instruments for creating wealth. Thus, much of the so-called corporate social responsibility is aimed at building a reputation for the company to continue ‘ ripping’ from the community and public at large.

This view is strongly buttressed by Secchi (2007), who posits that CSR initiatives are aimed at achieving economic results. On the other hand, Friedman (1970) in his early researches posited that the resources, as well as amenities, which corporations put in place as an undertaking in CSR, elevate the community from serious challenges. What he failed to point out, however, is whether the initiatives are aimed at bringing economic results in the end or if they are conducted for the best interest of the community.

References

Arlbjørn, J. S., Warming-Rasmussen, B., Liempd, D. V., & Mikkelsen, O. S. 2014. A European survey on corporate social responsibility. Kolding: Department of Entrepreneurship and Relation Management, University of Southern Denmark.

Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M.E. 2007. Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49, pp. 132–157.

Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S. and Jones, T.M. 2000. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 486–506.

Bowie, N. 1991. New directions in corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 34(4), 56 65.

Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38, 3:268-296.

Carroll, A.B. 2000. A commentary and an overview of key questions on corporate social performance measurement. Business and Society, 39, 4:466-479.

Detomasi, D. A. 2008. The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 807-819.

Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13: 32-33, 122-124.

Friedman, M. 2007. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits (pp. 173-178). springer berlin heidelberg.

Friedman’s Views on the Social Responsibility of Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 7:891 906.

Ip, P.K. 2009. The Challenge of Developing a Business Ethics in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 211-224.

Kurucz, E., Colbert, B. and Wheeler, D. 2008. The business case for corporate social responsibility. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–112.

Laszlo, C. 2003. The Sustainable Company: How to Create Lasting Value through Social and Environmental Performance. Washington: Island Press

Lee, M. P. 2008. Review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,1, 53-73.

Litz, R. A. 1996. A resource-based view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue of responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1355-1363.

Porter Michael E. 2008. On Competition, Updated and Expanded Edition, Harvard Business School, Publishing USA.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. 2006. Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, pp. 78–92.

Secchi, D. 2007. Utilitarian, managerial and relastional theories of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 4, 347-373.

Secchi, D. 2007. Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 4, 347-373.

Simon, J. G., Powers, C. W., & Gunnemann, J. P. 1972. The responsibilities of corporations and their owners. Ethical theory and business, 5, 61-66.

Smith, T. 2005. Institutional and social investors find common ground. Journal of Investing, 14, pp. 57–65.

Starbucks 2009. Starbucks, Transfair USA and Fair trade labeling organizations international announce ground breaking initiative to support small-scale coffee farmers

Suchman, M.C. 2005. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 20, pp. 571–610.

Vogel, D. 2005. The Market For Virtue: The Potential And Limits Of Corporate Social Responsibility, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Waldman, D.A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. and R.J. House. 2006. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 823-837.

Wood, D.J. 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 4:691-718.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us