Good Critical Thinking About Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Perspectives

Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility is a modern managerial concept that requires the organizations to engage in social services that can in turn benefit the surrounding societies. The organizations have to form a relationship that should have symbiotic status so that both of the parties with corporate and communal natures can have advantages. The companies have to engage in the provision of social services because they are considerable according to their sizes in comparison to an ordinary individual. The corporate entities have to serve the material societies because their survival is directly linked with the ability of the social systems to support them. At a basic level, the companies obtain and gather raw factors of production in order to add value, and then, they are sold as finished products. Firstly, the companies have to produce adequate level of quality in terms of products and services so that the customers can feel a certain level of loyalty towards them and their offerings as well. The classical views in this regard argue that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an ethical concern that needs the companies to restore the environmental damage caused by their operations with a specific time period. However, the modernists’ views are quite different from the abovementioned one because they identify the practice of CSR as yet another well organized and crafted marketing tool that gives the customers and other stakeholders the reason to trust the commercial organizations as they appear civically and humanistically valid after incorporating the concept in their working models. The organizations like Microsoft is relevantly prominent in the aspect of social responsibility, and recently, the company’s retired CEO, Bill Gates initiated a campaign to build disposable washrooms in India that can ease the sanitary pressures in the country to some insignificant level.
The key function of the companies remains to maximize the financial returns for the shareholders. During the process, they create jobs, economic activity, and human development as well. The classical experts are holding on to the viewpoint that organizations are already engaged in service of the society, because they are paying taxes that governments use in order to serve the needs and wants of the public. They explain that there are no organizational compelling forces that can cause any organization to work for the society as a separate project. The business environment is changing, and the customers are becoming more and more conscious with reference to the company with that they are doing business. Additionally, the contemporary clientele of the 21st century does not behave well towards the organizations that are actually or apparently hurting the natural habitat of the planet. In this way, nature has transformed into an important and valuable stakeholder in the organizational science of modern stature.
Furthermore, the natural trends of notable climate change, ozone damage, and resultant global warming have rendered the consumers ethically activated in the direction of ethical responsibility of the companies. The buyers are relatively undisturbed by the companies that are not practically following ethical principles in sociological terms, but they do not take lightly if the organizations are hurting the natural environment of the planet. The consumers are well aware of the fact that governments of developed nations are demonstrating precocity when it comes down to spending taxation funds for the betterment of public life. The classical view is valid as it was developed in the early times when globalization did not kick into the world of commerce. The forceful presence of information technology disseminated sufficient knowledge in the enlightened nations that prefer to use green products.
The companies such as Apple and Google have created positions on their Board of Directors that are responsible to introduce sense of environmental responsibility within the culture and structure of the leading companies. The Apple has currently deploying green and renewable energies in its major offices around the world. The CSR in traditional meaning died out because the socialistic measures for the growth of people fall within the governmental domain, and therefore, there is no need for the organizations to build schools and take other steps in order to improve the living standards of the public. However, they have to adopt efficient production systems in order to minimize their adverse affects on the quality of environment. In other words, CSR stands as an alternative for environmental sustainability. The needs to preserve environmental quality got just difficult and they create a defining piece of strategy that the companies have to follow in order to create success in the long and short run perspectives as well. In the current and prevalent times, no company can escape from their environmental duties.
The philosophical standpoint of Cohen, (2009) urges the companies to integrate environmental needs of the societies within their business model, and he expanded the notion in order to lay emphasis on the need to entertain and value environmental gradation when engaged in an economic activity. Peter Drucker suggested that organizational philosophy has to take the developmental requirements of the relevant societies while building strategies. Freidman concurred with Drucker in this regard, but both of the latterly mentioned views did not stand a chance when economic experts retaliated in academic terms. They established the fact that the companies are presently paying taxes, and they have to face corporate and personal taxation as well so they cannot engage in social services on their own, but the governments have to play their due roles regarding bringing betterment in the lives of the people.
Cohen acknowledged the literally efforts made in order to save the organizations from facing an unnecessary expense in the name of CSR, but he constructed a dangerous challenge for the organizations because he discussed environmental costs of the companies’ operations in great detail. He wanted the organizations to improve the efficiency of their production cycle in order to drive down the wastage, and he recommended that the organizations have to recycle the factors of production so that the acquisition and procurement costs should remain low as well. The featured researcher did not stop right there, but he substantiated the views of his seniors Drucker and Friedman. The latest view on CSR is more holistic in nature, and therefore, Cohen added that the organizations have to take good care of their internal and external stakeholders as well. Cohen’s real contribution in this regard stems out of his description of the organization as an entity that is using environmental factors to its advantage, and it is therefore, directly dutiful towards making the struggle in order restore naturalism in the surrounding communities.
The organizational strategic plans have to have an enviromentalities section that delineates the roadmap that the organization will use in order to keep itself naturally sustained. The research and development in the area of environmental sciences grew significantly when the organizations have to become responsible in the featured strategic area as well. The governmental regime is not disconnected in the journey of making organizations green throughout the world, but they have to build control mechanisms, and policies in order to ensure the right sense of direction in the companies as far as environmental sensitivity is considered. The capitalistic mindset did not take environment as a stakeholder of the organizations. However, researchers forced them to do so with the help of using pen’s power, and nowadays, the economic order of the advanced nations is working to integrate environmental variables into their strategic outlook. The developing countries have to receive intensive level of education and training in this regard.

Conclusion

This paper has literally design to highlight the ethical concerns and costs that organizations confront in the latest perils of corporatism. However, the companies were able to defeat the academic attackers who tried to integrate socialistic concerns within the strategic planning of the organizations. The latest literally works introduced a holistic viewpoint in the body of literature discussing CSR. The defining organizational and social corporate duty lies within the maintenance of servitude regarding preservation of natural environment. The managers have to accept their defeat against the academic viewpoint of those who favor environmental sustainability, and the managerial levels of progressive organizations have moved to make the necessary changes in order to incorporate new ways of doing business.

References

Baron, D. P. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy Vol 16 (3), 683–717.
Cohen, W. A. (2009). What Drucker taught us about social responsibility. Leader to Leader Vol 2009 (51), 29–34.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review Vol 15 (4), 323-338.
Rolland, D., & Bazzoni, J. O. (2009). Greening corporate identity: CSR online corporate identity reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol 14 (3), 249 - 263.
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Not Whether, but how? London: London Business School.