Organizations work for the consumers and claim that they are the ones who make it possible for the generation of goods and social benefits. On the other hand consumers are of the opinion that organizations exist because of consumer endorsement. Organizations would not be possible had it not been for the selection and preference. These are two of the views that prevail in the corporate sector when arguing social responsibility. The proliferation of the issue over the years has increased due to the number of cases where organizations are considered to be socially irresponsible. For example the oil spill in Iraq, Nike's sweatshops in Thailand, Shell's political involvement in Nigeria and child labor in Pakistan. But that is not the only areas that raise issues regarding the corporate responsibility.
[...] What this suggest as Friedman says is that corporations are forced to become responsible; they are not interested in making sure the plants are safe or the products or equipments installed are safe. The reasons why they follow these safety procedures is that they want to ensure that the public does not rebuke and decrease their sales which ultimately reflect on their profitability. For this reason one see that automotive companies argue that they take all the measures that are required by law but very few would claim that they do it for the safety interest. [...]
[...] This is imperative as Wood (1991) views and define corporate social responsibility: business organization's configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm's societal relationships." Corporate social responsibility in the automobile industry need to be responsive for several reasons and there are more reasons for why automotive companies need to be observant in their programs and policies. The responsibility of the creation and production of vehicles is reflected in the vehicle's usability and effectiveness. [...]
[...] Honda is reported to have sensor that works for airbag system while Volvo integrate B-pillar inside its vehicle to prevent them from experiencing side vehicle impact. The purpose is not to integrate an ostensible safety system and comply with the required safety standards. What makes these organizations credible is the responsibility they take and the research they engage in to achieve this goal. This is because organizations are social as they are made up of people who makes them possible and the consumers they serve. Unlike Milton Friedman who believe that "only people have responsibilities . [...]
[...] Issues like energy and environment; worker's workplace conditions; gender issues and plant safety etc. are taken into account despite a history of controversies. Conclusion Despite the above however, companies in the automotive industry are ethically responsible in the sense that they do take measures as per requirement. Companies like the big 3 are more conscious of their operations not only in vehicle production but also for those who work for them; plants located elsewhere and the people who purchase them. [...]
[...] In the automotive industry too corporate social responsibility is gaining importance as more and more organizations are realizing the implication of their attitude, perception and behavior towards the products they make and sell. In realizing that the principles of social responsibility, process of social responsiveness and policies these organizations also change. Restructuring is eventuality as organizations realize that they cannot within a framework that accounts for million of lives. The production of automotive vehicles is one such area of expertise that requires careful deliberation when considering design, structure, use and safety. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee