The paper "Corporate Social Responsibility as a Form of Self-Regulation" is a worthy example of a business essay. Corporate social responsibility is a form of self-regulation, which is integrated into a business model. In other words, it can be referred to as the inbuilt instrument, which enables the business to monitor itself and ensures dynamic compliance with both ethical principles and international customs. This seeks to analyze the fundamental issues involved in the proposed path for Shapeshifting CSR 1.0 to CSR 2.0. As a point of departure, the CSR has undergone immense evolution over 4000 years.
The modern CSR is dated back in the mid-1800s. The failure of CSR to address the intended issues saw the scientists and other scholars to suggest a redefinition of the concept in a modernized manner to fit the ever-dynamic compliance of the principles in the business environment (MASSA & TESTA, 2010). The failure of CSR can be attributed to the triple curse of modern CSR, which consists of incremental CSR meaning inadequate quality management, peripheral CSR, which means a lack of quality top management and uneconomic CSR (SOLIS, 2012).
The intended CSR path from CRS 1.0 to CSR 2.0 is timely because of the total failure of the present CSR to address modern problems such as the dynamic internal compliance aspects in the business world. The intended ultimate level of CSR 2.0 is attributed to dynamism in line with Carroll’ s multi-dimensional model (CARROLL, 1979). This enables the CSR to fits the present and future variations of the business environment. For instance, it is defined as a global instrument for innovative partnerships and stakeholder involvement in business management.
It consists of diverse stakeholder panels and the modern wave of social entrepreneurship, which represents the transformative aspect from the traditional CRS1.0. CSR facilitates a power shift from a centralized perspective of control to a decentralized one. This contributes to accountability through multiple sharing of ideas. The fundamental aspects of the CSR 2.0 include connectedness, which implies that the hegemony of shareholders’ subservience is broken down to connectedness to increase efficiency and transparency. The second aspect is the scalability: this intends that CRS’ s projects should be propelled to reach the best practices in the business world that can match with the current and future trends such as redefining and shaping a business’ s inflows and market power.
Responsiveness is another aspect that intends to check whether the severity of the problems facing the business world is solved through a transformative CSR 2.0 (GOND & CRANE, 2010). The CSR 2.0 intends to be part of the solution and not a problem. The fourth aspect is the duality nature of CSR 2.0, which intends to provide a framework for companies to develop sophisticated tools of understanding internal and global business patterns, which propels the finding of appropriate solutions to a business entity’ s problems, without forsaking the common principles.
Finally, the principle of circularity intends that the CSR 2.0 to have good intent and enhance the framing of the global economic system on a strong and flawless design (ZANDA, 2012). In conclusion, the sole function of evolving the CSR 1.0 to CSR 2.0 is to facilitate explicit clarification and reorientation of the objectives of businesses.