Corporate Social Responsibility for Practices- MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theCorporate Social Responsibility for Practices. Answer: Introduction Business ethics is important in the society today because of the increase in market driven decisions. Organizations chose to act ethically through Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) as a way of bridging the gap between the profit agenda and community development. Although some organizations are sincere in the corporate social responsibility as a common good, others use this to advance their selfish agenda. In the global markets, the growth of Multi-National Enterprises (MNE) is cause for the emergence of CSR practices as a development agenda and PR strategy. MNE are multimillion-dollar operations operating across different borders. Due to the high profits, these organizations feel the need to give back to host country through community based initiatives. These could be investments in education, infrastructure, health care, or other basic services. Many countries such as the third world states continue to benefit from such functions. However, critiques of this venture highlight a falsified agenda claiming that MNEs are out to reap off and exploit the resources of the host country. Such theorists believe that CSR is a scheme used to gain operating license in foreign nations. This essay compares the pros and cons of CSR with reference to the global markets and emerging trends of globalization. Nature and Theory of Business Ethics Individual factors influence ethical and business decisions (Richardson and Ford, 2012). People make choices because of personal principles, educational background, professional convictions, and social cultural influences. Situations also determine the choices made. Business codes of conduct change leading to a shift in decisions. Gjolberg, (2009) describes the origin of CSR in the global arena to highlight the role of political and economic institutions in CSR decisions. She explains that organizations adopt CSR because they are willing and able to do it. National policies and activities of organizations may encourage or discourage a companys CSR. This implies that the national political and economic system causes MNEs to invest in CSR. The market economy or capitalist systems have a stiff competitive environment in which businesses formulate strategies in order to survive. The formulation of CSR involves theories and practices. Concepts in CSR date back to the industrial age as a S ocial Responsibility concept (Carroll, 1998). Its agenda was to create well-being in society and it came before the advent of corporate business. Its integration in organizations as a business strategy makes it part of business practices. Different organizations use CSR differently. For some, it is a policy but for other organizations, it is a strategic plan depending on whether the CSR has a managerial ownership or a public ownership (Siddiqui, Muttakin, and Khan, 2013). The legitimacy of a CSR practice depends on whether it abides by the national regulations. In most organizations today, business operations in the manufacturing and production industries have the responsibility of giving disclosure (Elliott, 2011). This is because of concerns for human existence and the quality of the natural environment in the present and future. National governments collaborate with global in ensuring that the international activities of innovation have sustainability approaches for the maintenance of environmental and resources base. This explains the call for standardized reporting of environmental effects such as carbon release as a CSR (Reber and Hou. 2011). Role of CSR in Influencing Corporate Actions and Attitudes Economic changes in the global system has led to an increase in capitalist organizations that have a profit focus. A Forbes report on the world largest corporations indicates that most of these are banks (Schaefer, 2016). It is unfair for such institutions to swim in a pool of profits when society is in poverty, poor climate and other social ills. It is ironical that most of these large banks are in China where there is a high record of negative climatic impact. Companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Volkswagen and Toyota should invest some of its multibillion profits into development agenda. These decisions should be because of the conviction to redistribute some of its profits. It is unfair to make money from a society yet nothing goes back to the peoples lives. Consumers recognize and respect socially responsible brands. It is interesting that most brands, which top CSR trends, feature among the largest globally (Straus, 2016). CSR is an expensive venture, which needs funds, and these organizations have the funds required for large projects. Leaving all responsibilities to the humanitarian organizations is unfair and leaves humanity in suffering. CSR gives business organizations a management prerogative to offer accountability and operate responsibly (Leonidou, and Skarmeas, 2013). Unfortunately, CSR is no longer a charitable activity nor a sincere venture because of misconduct (Tonello, 2011). Companies use CSR for sustainability, business ethics, and competitive advantage. While ethics in business is good for stakeholder benefits it should not be a scapegoat for more reap offs. Consumers are also to blame because an organization, which engages in recognizable CSR, becomes more respectable. This is wrong if in essence, CSR makes the company even richer. A brand like Apple, which has high revenues, should worry more about giving back to the community than enhancing its brand equity (Woo, Kim, and Hur, 2014). The business function of CSR is questionable because the agenda is not to benefit the society but a selfish agenda. Using CSR for adverting or influencing the outcome is wrong (Hsu, 2012). Critical Analysis of Ethical Issues and Recommendations for Management Issues According to the International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility is serious responsibilities that are beyond profits (Gibson, 2013). When an organization invests millions to promote its own cause or to avert risks and crisis, it cannot claim to have done so on CSR grounds. CSR is a just cause for charity, philanthropic work. It could involve creation of employment for social good, community work, environmental practices and skill development. CSR should not find motivation in market driven cause but instead it should be part of the business ethics towards responsibility, poverty alleviation, non-renewable resource sustainability and social benefits. CSR practices such as sustainability approaches for environmental conservation are important. Reber and Hou (2011) highlight the importance of disclosure on environmental, organizational and community activities as a CSR activity. Hopkins Michael (2007) questions whether CSR is an answer to social problems such as po verty. He analyses CSR successes and failures by defining the development agenda. In his opinion, development should address issues such as inequality, urbanization, dualism, agricultural development, education, health, unemployment, governance, corruption, and basic needs among others (Hopkins: 2007: 2). CSR as a systems approach should have an approach similar to the NGOs in which operations contribute towards an agency charged with the role of development as a unified agenda of businesses. However, this is not the case because organizations pursue ways in which they can make more money through CSR strategic positioning. It is no wonder that MNE set aside billions with claims that this is a CSR initiative yet the reason for such an investment if organizational based. The origin of CSR is clear from the beginning. That is why it has a social concept intertwined. If the intention is not for social benefit, then it becomes a business responsibility. Conclusion CSR as a business ethics practice focuses on social responsibility in terms of community development and stakeholder benefits. It is suppose do improve people and society through improved standards of living. This means the presence of a global bank in an insecure zone such as the Middle East should invest some of its profits in improving security in the region. This is for the common good of the society and the sustainability of the business. Environmental concerns continue to overwhelm MNEs because of this. Therefore, instead of organizations adopting MNE plans as a strategy towards making their brands earn more money or reputation, it should do so a human responsibility. This ensures that corporations stay clear off then profit agenda, which can cause more harm than good. It is unethical to make profits. In fact, that is the sole motivation of any business. However, if a large organization is going to make money in the midst of massive unemployment, poor education systems and pove rty, then the business has no ethical reason for existence. The modern capitalist system comprises of stakeholders like suppliers, managers, investors, employees and external contributors. All these networks need to become part of the CSR plan. A concerted effort towards improving life will convince businesses on the importance of having a unified effort towards CSR charitable activities, developmental and sustainability plans. References Carroll, A. (1998). A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices. In, Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Chapter 2. Oxford University Press, pp 19-46 Elliott, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework for IT-enabled Business Transformation. MIS Quarterly. Vol 35 (1), pp 197-236 Gibson, K (2013). Corporate Social responsibility. The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley Gjolberg, M. (2009). The Origin of Corporate Social Responsibility: Global Forces or National Legacies. Socio-Economic Review. Vol 7 (4), pp 605-637) Hopkins, M. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and International Development: Is Business the Solution? London. Michael Hopkins Hsu, K (2012). The Advertising Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Reputation and Brand Equity: Evidence From the life Insurance Industry in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics Leonidou, C and Skarmeas, D. (2013). When Consumers Doubt, Watch Out! The Role of CSR Skepticism. Journal of Business Research. Vol 6 (10), pp 1831-1838 Reber, B and Hou, J (2011). Dimensions of Disclosure: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting by Media Companies. Public Relations Review. Vol 37 (2), pp, 166-168 Schaefer, S. (2016). Worlds Largest Public Companies in 2016. Forbes. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2016/05/25/the-worlds-largest-companies-2016/#554bfb8445a6 (Accessed 23rd May 2017) Siddiqui, J, Muttakin, M and Khan, A. (2013). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol, 114 (2), pp, 207-223 Straus, K (2016). The Companies with the Best CSR Reputations in the World in 2016. Forbes. Available athttps://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2016/09/15/the-companies-with-the-best-csr-reputations-in-the-world-in-2016/#d06041275060 (Accessed 23rd 2017) Tonello, M (2011). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Available at https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/26/the-business-case-for-corporate-social-responsibility/ (Accessed 23rd May 2017) Woo J, Kim, H, and Hur, W. (2014). How CSR Leads to Corporate Brand Equity: Mediating Mechanisms of Corporate Brand Credibility and Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol 25 (1), pp, 75-86