The paper "Stakeholder and Shareholder Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility" is a great example of management coursework. Corporate social responsibility refers to the way organizations incorporate environmental, economic and social matters into their administrative operations, strategy, culture and values in a responsive and transparent manner and thus establish better practices in the firm, generate wealth and improve the society. Because businesses play a crucial role in wealth and job creation in society, corporate social responsibility is a core management concern. It positions organizations to practically take care of their risks and take advantage of prospects, particularly with respect their business status and wider engagement of stakeholders such as governments, communities, customers, and suppliers (Matten, & Crane, 2005). Additionally, corporate social responsibility is about performance with performance reporting being a portion of accountable, transparent and thus credible corporate behavior.
In the case study, the Olympic movement, the Sydney 2000 Olympics and its organization for buying votes to secure the Olympics is unethical behavior in the sports industry. Additionally, Sydney 2000 reserved majority of the best tickets for wealthy individuals and sponsors, an action that was not revealed by the SOCOG board.
The following literature aims at identifying the most significant and knowledgeable important practical and academic works on the concept of corporate social responsibility ad ethics. Literature review on corporate social responsibility In recent periods corporate social responsibility has become a topic of interest amongst practitioners and researchers. Nevertheless, a precise definition of CSR is subtle and opinions differ. Corporate social responsibility has been described as a function that goes beyond but entails profit-making, jobs creation and production of services and goods. According to Garriga, & Mele, (2004), numerous researchers assert that CSR has come to imply the positive activities that organizations undertake to assist discharge their responsibilities to exterior stakeholders.
Additionally, other definitions entail financial performance as a feature of corporate social responsibility. Based o this definition, a variety of behaviors are categorized under CSR entailing cause-related marketing, sponsorship of charitable events, provision of employee volunteerism programs, using environmental initiatives and displaying a commitment to safety and health issues. The exact nature of corporate social responsibility is understood in diverse ways, with disparities in representation or understanding of the concept relevant to diverse concerns and paradigms.
Eve, though there are numerous contested notions of what corporate social responsibility must be and how it is supposed to function, there is a great degree of agreement on what it generally entails. Numerous issues and concepts are common in definitions of CSR such as human rights, diversity management, environmental responsibility, philanthropy and sustainability, implying that it is an intricate area having an interdisciplinary focus. It is usually agreed that corporate social responsibility involves companies willingly going beyond their legal responsibilities to take into consideration the environmental, social and economic effects of their operations (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). However, while a universally recognized definition of corporate social responsibility, CSR could imply diverse things to diverse stakeholder groups.
To the shareholders, CSR might imply maximization of profits while to governments, it might imply to complying with legislative requirements and safety workplace ad products. To customers, CSR might imply high-quality products at a reasonable price and possibly philanthropic or ethical behavior. Early advocates of corporate social responsibility emphasize that CSR theorists dispute that organizational management is supposed to integrate ethics into strategic goals and objectives because it is the appropriate thing to do.
This was obviously the right thing to state, looking at the present development of CSR and its practices, but this argument did not have a solid ground. According to Lantos, (2001), following the advocates of corporate social responsibility, any huge organization is fundamentally a social institution and also an economic enterprise. Thus, every business affair is supposed to be cautiously weighted on the basis of the probable social effects as the consequence of such activities ad carefully balance the conflicting responsibilities to numerous stakeholders.