Answer to the Question No.1
CSR refers 'Corporate Social Responsibility’. CSR is about how companies manage the business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. It is also known as corporate responsibility, responsible business, sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate social performance is a form of corporate.. Some other definition on CSR is given below
“Companies have a lot of power in the community and in the national economy. They control a lot of assets, and may have billions in cash at their disposal for socially conscious investments and programs. Some companies may engage in "greenwashing", or feigning interest in corporate responsibility, but many large corporations are devoting real time and money to environmental sustainability programs, alternative energy/cleantech, and various social welfare initiatives to benefit employees, customers, and the community at large.”
Investopedia
“Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”
The World Business Council
“CSR has been defined much more in terms of a philanphropic model. Companies make profits, unhindered except by fulfilling their duty to pay taxes. Then they donate a certain share of the profits to charitable causes. It is seen as tainting the act for the company to receive any benefit from the giving.”
Traditionally in the United States
CSR is about businesses and other organizations going beyond the legal obligations to manage the impact they have on the environment and society. In particular, this could include how organizations interact with their employees, suppliers, customers and the communities in which they operate, as well as the extent they attempt to protect the environment.
The Institute of Directors, UK, 2002
From above definition it is concluded that the corporate social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.
Answer To The Question No. 2
Arguments For and Against Corporate Social Responsibility
Some of the more salient arguments on both sides of this contemporary debate are summarized in Figure 1.1 and further explained in the following sections.
Arguments for CSR Arguments against CSR
 |
Arguments For Corporate Social Responsibility: People who argue in favor of social responsibility claim that because crate many of the problems that need to be addressed, such as air and water pollution and resource depletion, they should play a major role in solving them. They also argue that because corporations are legally defined entitles with most of the same privileges as private citizens, should not try to avoid their obligations as citizens. Advocate of social responsibility point out that whereas governmental organizations have stretched their budget to the limit, many large business often have surplus revenues that could be used to help solve socials problems. For example IBM routinely donates surplus computers to schools, and many restaurants give leftover food to homeless shelters.
Although each of the arguments just summarized is a distinct justification for socially responsible behaviors on the part of organizations. Another more general reason for social responsibility is profit it self. For example, organization that make clear and visible contributions to the society can achieve an enhanced reputation and garner greater market share for their products. Although claims of socially responsible activities can haunt a company if there are exaggerated or untrue, they can also work to the benefit of both the organization and society if the advertised benefits are true and accurate.
Arguments Against Corporate Social Responsibility: Some people, however, including the famous economists Milton Friedman, argue that widening the interpretation of social responsibility will undermine the U.S economy by detracting from the basic mission of business to earn profits for owners. For example money that chevron or general electric contributions to social cause of charities is money that could otherwise be distributed to owners as a dividend. Shareholders of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade holdings once expressed outrage when the firm refused to accept a lucrative exporting deal to Japan simply because the Japanese distributor did not have strong social agenda.
Another objection to deepening the social responsibility of business points out that corporations already wield enormous power and that their activity in social program gives them even more power. Still another argument against
social responsibility focuses on the potential for conflicts of interest. Suppose for example, that one manager is in charge of deciding which local social program or charity will receive a large grant from her business. The local civic opera company might offer her front row tickets for upcoming reason in exchange for her support. If opera is her favorite form of music, she might be tempted to direct the money toward the local company, when it might actually be needed more in other areas.
Finally, critics urge that organizations lack the expertise to understand how to assess and make decisions about worthy social programs. How can a company truly know, they ask, whick cause or program is most deserving of its support or how money might best be spent? For example, Jamuna mobil gives most of the money to support breeding programs in zoos and to help educate people about the tiger. But conservationist criticize the firm and its activities, arguing that the money might be better spent instead on eliminating poaching, the illegal trade of tiger fur, and the destruction of tiger’s natural habitat.
Answer To The Question No. 3
Approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility
Organizations can adopt a variety of approaches to social responsibility. For example, a firm that never considers the consequences of its decisions and tries to hide its transgressions is taking an obstructionist stance. At the other extreme, a firm that actively seeks to identify areas where it can help society is pursuing a proactive stance toward social responsibility. Approaches to social responsibility are showing below.
Lowest Highest
Obstructionist Stance:
An approach to social responsibility in which firms do as little as possible to solve social and environmental problems. When they cross the ethical or legal line that separates acceptable from unacceptable practices, their typical reason is to deny or avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. For example, a senior executive from astra USA, a subsidiary of a Swedish pharmaceutical firm, was once charged with sexual harassment and misusing corporate assets. When this problem was first reported, officials at both the US Company denied any wrongdoing without even conducting an inquiry.
Defensive Stance:
A social responsibility stance in which an organization does everything that is required of it legally, but nothing more. This approach is most consistent with the arguments used against social responsibility. Mangers in organization that take a defensive stance insist that their job is to generate profits. For example, such a firm would install polluting control equipment dictated by law, but would not install higher quality but slightly more expensive equipment even though it might limit pollution further.
Accommodative stance:
A social responsibility stance in which an organization meets its legal and ethical obligations but will also goes beyond these obligations in selected cases. Such firms voluntarily agree to participate in social programs, but solicitors have to convince the organization that the program is worthy of its support. Both Exxon mobile and IBM, for example, will match contribution made by their employees to selected charitable causes. And many organizations will respond to requests for donations to Little League, Girls Scouts, youth soccer programs, and so forth. The point, though, is that someone has to knock on the door and ask- the organizations do not proactive seeks such avenues for contributing.
Proactive Stance:
A social responsibility stance in which an organization views itself as a citizen in a society and proactively seeks opportunities to contribute. It is the highest degree approaches to corporate social responsibility. Firms that adopt this approach take to heart the arguments in favor of social responsibility. They view themselves as citizens in a society and proactively seek opportunities to contribute. An excellent example of a proactive stance is the Ronald McDonald House program undertaken by McDonald’s. Families for minimal cost can use these houses located close to major medical centers, while their sick children are receiving medical treatment nearby. Sears offers fellowships that support promising young performers while they develop their talents. Target stopped selling guns in its stores, and toys “R” Us stopped selling realistic guns both due to concern about escalating violence.
“If we find evidence of systematic (worker abuse), we are not going to do business with you”
Jim Walter, Matterl Senior Vice President
No comments:
Post a Comment